2004 (8) TMI 34

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... reinafter referred to as "the Act" for the opinion to this court: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee would be entitled to deduction of Rs. 1,00,000 under section 5(1)(iv) against the value of her share in M/s. Amarpali Cinema in which she was a partner?" The respondent-assessee is a resident-individual. The asse .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rd Sri A.N. Mahajan, learned counsel for the Revenue, and Sri R.S. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee. Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that under section 5(1)(iv) of the Act exemption is granted to one house or part of a house belonging to the assessee and not to a cinema building as by no stretch of imagination a cinema building can be said to be a house. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ma hall is not a house at all. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken in the case of Jai Kishan Gupta [2003] 264 ITR 482 (All). So far as the decision relied upon by Sri R.S. Agarwal is concerned, it may be mentioned here that this court had not considered the word "house" used in section 5(1)(iv) of the Act and had simply held that interest in the immovable property is exempt. In Wea .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X