9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (12) TMI 175X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wn by the assessee. 2. The assessee is an individual. As on the valuation date 18-5-1981 corresponding to the assessment year 1982-83 she showed in her net wealth her interest in a firm M/s Jaisingh Investments at Rs. 1,99,643. This amount represented her share of the capital on the closure of the books of the firm on 10-5-1981. The firm had been commenced with effect from 21-4-1980 and evidenced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and therefore he substituted the sum of Rs. 2,42,893 (Sale Price Rs. 2,35,000 + Rs. 7,893 interest) for value of Rs. 1,99,643 shown by the assessee. This was confirmed on appeal. 3. In the further appeal before us, it was contended on behalf of the assessee that whatever may have been the reasons for enhancing the capital gains for income-tax purposes, the assessment for wealth-tax depended upon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the flat it would not follow that the entire assets held by the firm belonged to the assessee. The logical consequence of the allegation that the Finn is sham is only the interest in that firm cannot be assessed as an asset in the hands of the assessee. That does not mean that all the assets standing in the name of the firm would belong to the assessee. It has been held by the Supreme Court in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll be limited to her share in the property of the firm. Her rights do not get enlarged by the finding that the firm is sham for the purpose of capital gains, as long as that finding did not mean that the partnership deed was not acted upon. In the present case, the revenue did not dispute the fact that the partnership deed was in fact acted upon and the investments were made only by the firm with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
