9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that under rule 2 of the Wealth-tax Rules, net wealth of the firm was to be computed after considering all the exemptions under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. 2. Whether the exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, was admissible for the purpose of determining the net wealth of the assessee. Summary: Issue 1: Computation of Net Wealth of the Firm under Rule 2 of the Wealth-tax Rules The Tribunal held that the net wealth of the firm should be computed in accordance with the provisions of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. This includes considering all exemptions applicable under the Act. The Tribunal directed the Wealth-tax Officer (WTO) to determine the firm's wealth after deducting the value of the part of the house used by the assessee for residential purposes and limiting the exemption to Rs. 1,00,000. Issue 2: Admissibility of Exemption under Section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 The assessee claimed exemption u/s 5(1)(iv) for a house used for residential purposes. The WTO and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) disallowed the exemption, stating that the house was owned by the firm, not the assessee. The Tribunal, however, held that since the house was used by the partners for residence, it should be deemed to be used by the firm for residential purposes, making the exemption admissible. The court reframed the question to focus on whether the exemption u/s 5(1)(iv) was admissible in determining the net wealth of the firm for assessing the net wealth of the partners. The court noted that a firm is not a chargeable unit under the Act, and the net wealth of a partner includes the value of his interest in the firm, determined in the prescribed manner. The court discussed the relationship between partners and the firm, emphasizing that the assets of the firm belong to the partners. It concluded that exemptions available to a partner must be considered when determining the net wealth of the firm. The court disagreed with the Madras High Court's decision in Purushothamdas Gocooldas v. CWT, which denied the exemption to a partner for assets owned by the firm. The court agreed with the Karnataka High Court's decision in CWT v. Mrs. Christine Cardoza, which allowed exemptions in determining the net wealth of a partner. The court held that the partners qualify for the exemption u/s 5(1)(iv) as the house belongs to them and is used for residential purposes. Conclusion: The court answered the reframed question in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee, granting the exemption u/s 5(1)(iv) for determining the net wealth of the firm and, consequently, the net wealth of the partners. The assessee was entitled to costs and a hearing fee of Rs. 250.
|
