9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (8) TMI 71X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for the opinion to this court: "1. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is legally correct in holding that the assessee was entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act in respect of his share in the value of the immovable properties, which belonged to the firm of which the assessee is a partner? 2. Whether ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation Officer initially valued the assets including the market at Rs. 21,16,000 as on March 31, 1976. After hearing the assessee, the Valuation Officer valued the property at Rs. 19,59,000. It was on this basis that the interest of the assessee in the firm was worked out. The assessee had also claimed that the value of this property was exempt under section 5(1)(iv) of the Act. The Wealth-tax Offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he earlier year's order where the question of addition of reversionary value as well as the question of exemption under section 5(1)(iv) had been decided in favour of the assessee. We have heard Sri A. N. Mahajan and Sri Shambhoo Chopra, learned counsel for the Revenue. Nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents-assessees. So far as the first question is concerned, it may be menti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in respect of the share in the immovable properties in question. So far as the second question is concerned this court in the case of CWT v. Ram Saran Kajriwal [1987] 168 ITR 485 has held that reversionary value of the land cannot be included while valuing the immovable property by capitalizing the net annual letting value. Thus the reversionary value cannot be included while valuing the immovab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
