TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1984 (5) TMI 78
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....heir interest in the houses property should be computed after deducting the exemption provided for by s. 5(1)(iv). This claim was negatived by the WTO relying upon a decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shri H. K. Tangree in WTA Nos. 315 to 318 (Cal) of 1978-79 for the asst. yrs. 1972-73 to 1975-76. There said conclusion has been confirmed by the AAC on appeals filed by the assessee. The assessees have come up in second appeals before us. 3. We have heard the representatives of the parties at length in these appeals. The question as to how far a partner is entitled to deduction under s. 5 in respect of the assets owned by the firm in which he is a partner is not free from difficulty and there are several conflicting opinions given by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch and B- Bench of the Tribunal in the case of these very assessees in WTA Nos. 315 to 318 (Cal) of 1978-79 and WTA Nos. 26 to 29 (Cal) of 1980 wherein it has been held that none of the partners is entitled to any deduction at all. 5. We are, therefore, posed with a very difficult question and to find an appropriate answer to the same. We went through the entire history of the legislation and the authorities on the subject. After carefully considering all the relevant provisions we are of the opinion that while deciding the question of deduction the firm itself should be considered to be an assessee and in the first instance the net wealth of the firm has to be computed after granting such deductions as may be admissible to an individual....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act and rules would leads us to one and to only one conclusion i.e., the net wealth of the firm has to be computed after giving necessary exemptions to the firm itself as if it was an assessee. In this behalf we may point out that if the intention of framers of the Act was not to give any exemption they could have simply computed the value of a partner's interest in a firm according to the amount of capital standing at his credit but this is what they have not done. Instead thereof they have laid down a detailed procedure to determine the value of the interest of a person in a firm of which he is partner or an AOP of which he is a member. In the subsequent part of this rule they have referred to assets which are disclosed in the balance she....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....firm. But this is not the actual position under the WT Act. No firm is liable to wealth-tax as the charging of s. 3 of the Act would show. Only individuals and HUFs are liable to pay taxes on their wealth out the firms are not. Only the interest of the individuals whereas partners in the firms are to be included in the computation of their wealth and that too has to be done in a particular manner. If the Calcutta High Court decision was applicable to Wealth-tax then no inclusion of share of assets of a partner in a firm could be made in the computation of his net wealth. This is, however, not what has been done by the WTO or the Tribunal earlier. 7. In this behalf we are supported by a decision of the Patna High Court in CWT, Bihar vs. N....