1984 (4) TMI 92

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and the AAC on the ground that it is the firm which owns the property and not the assessee. 2. The next dispute relates to the value of the shares held by the assessee in M/s G.K. & Sons which was taken by the WTO at Rs. 2,34,990 being the face value thereof. On behalf of the assessee it was contended before the AAC that the market value of these shares should have been determined according to the WT Rules and deduction of 15 per cent should have been allowed as provided for therein. The AAC, however, rejected this contention on the ground that the deduction was allowable only when the valuation was made by the break up method under r. 1D of the WT Rules. In the present case the company was new and the market value of the share could not ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....urt in CWT vs. Mrs. Christine Cardoza (1978) 114 ITR 532 (Kar). A contrary view, however, was taken by the Madras High Court in the case of Purushothamdas Gocooldas vs. CWT 1976 CTR (Mad) 361 : (1976) 104 ITR 608 (Mad) wherein it was held that the assessees are not entitled to any deduction on account of their supposed share in the house property owned by the firm of which they were the partners. The representative of the Department also referred to a judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Sarvamangala Properties Ltd. vs. CIT (1973) 90 ITR 267 (Cal) for the proposition that a firm has a distinct entity in the IT Law as against the partners thereof. 5. We, however, find that all the authorities should be deemed to be obsolete in view of th....