TMI Blog1994 (8) TMI 15X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... three questions of law arising out of its order dated March 10, 1983, in respect of the assessment years 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80 under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. "(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that gratuity liability is an ascertained liability and, therefore, the same should be deducted while determini ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rathi v. CWT [1991] 188 ITR 518 in which it was held by this court that the liability to pay gratuity is not in praesenti but would arise in future on the termination of service, i.e., on retirement, death or termination and is a contingent liability within the meaning of rule 1D of the Rules. Provision for gratuity was held not deductible in valuing the unquoted equity shares of the company. In v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the firm is residing in the house, he is entitled to the exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act. The Madras High Court in the case of Purushothamdas Gocooldas v. CWT [1976] 104 ITR 608 has held that the partner of the firm is not entitled to the exemption who is living in the house owned by the firm because in such a case the partner cannot claim any specific interest in the firm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l not be included in the net wealth of the assessee-. . . (iv) one house or part of a house belonging to the assessee and exclusively used by him for residential purpose: Provided that, where the value of such house or part (situate in a place with a population exceeding ten thousand) exceeds one lakh of rupees the amount that shall not be included in the net wealth of an assessee under this s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (m) and section 4(1)(b), rule 1A(m) and rule 2 of the Rules, we are of the view that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was not justified in holding that a partner of the firm is entitled to deduction under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act in respect of the property owned by the firm. Similarly, the provisions of section 7(4) cannot be invoked in respect of the house which is belonging to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|