9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (10) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowing two questions have been referred under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 : " (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that the provisions of section 4(1)(b) of the Wealth-tax Act read with rule 2 of the Wealth-tax Rules and the principle decided by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in CWT v. Narendra Ranjalke ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the firm was not allowed. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) noted that on a revaluation, the property was valued at Rs. 5,76,000 and the share of the assessee-partner came to Rs. 72,000. This amount being less than Rs. 1 lakh, which is the maximum amount exempted under section 5(1)(iv) of the Act, he held that this amount is not includible in the wealth-tax assessments of the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he net wealth of the assessee. Learned counsel for the Revenue pointed out that the decision of the Tribunal in Sadasiva Rao's case [1982] 30 CTR (Trib) 10 has been reversed by this court in CWT v. B. Chandrasekhara Rao [1989] 175 ITR 66 and, therefore, the decision of the Tribunal was not correct and the questions raised must be answered in favour of the Revenue. On the other hand, learned couns ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at on the facts of this case, the question is academic. It is not in dispute that the assessee was a minor on the relevant valuation dates and he was only admitted to the benefits of the partnership. Therefore, the assessee did not have any share in the assets of the firm. That was the reason why the Appellate Tribunal upheld the order of the Appellate Commissioner excluding the value of the build ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
