2001 PLP 1932 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Versus R. ARIFF and others
| Citation | 2001 PLP 1932 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | 246 I T R 797 |
| Bench Members | R. Jayasimha Babu and Mrs. A. Subbulalwhmy, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Versus R. ARIFF and others |
| Primary Law | Wealth tax‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 1932 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Wealth tax‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 1932 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the 246 I T R 797 bench comprising: R. Jayasimha Babu and Mrs. A. Subbulalwhmy, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 1932 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Versus R. ARIFF and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- C.V. Rajan for Petitioner.
- P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Reference‑‑‑Exemption‑‑‑Firm‑‑‑Partner‑‑‑Building owned by firm‑‑ Commercial building also regarded as a house for purpose of S.5(1)(iv)‑‑ Tribunal correct in holding that partner was entitled to exemption in respect of his share in firm in respect of property owned by firm‑‑‑No question of law arose‑‑‑Indian Wealth Tax Act, 1957, Ss.5(1)(iv) &
27. Held, that the Tribunal was right in holding that though the building was a commercial building, the building being a hotel, it was entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, and similarly the partner of the firm was eligible for relief in respect of his share of his interest in the property owned by the firm in which the assessee was a partner. Accordingly, no question of law arose for reference. CWT v. Thav'amani (1999) 237 ITR 152 (Mad.) and R. Venkatavaradha Reddiar v. CWT (1995) 214 ITR 76 (Mad.) fol. Jagdish Chandra Grover v. CWT (1985) 156 ITR 560 (MP); Ravi Mohan v. CWT (1989) 180 ITR 667 (MP); Tata ‑Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. Gram Panchayat AIR 1976 SC 2463 and (1976) 4 SCC 177 ref.
Judgment & Decree
CWT v. Thav'amani (1999) 237 ITR 152 (Mad.) and R. Venkatavaradha Reddiar v. CWT (1995) 214 ITR 76 (Mad.) fol. Jagdish Chandra Grover v. CWT (1985) 156 ITR 560 (MP); Ravi Mohan v. CWT (1989) 180 ITR 667 (MP); Tata ‑Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. Gram Panchayat AIR 1976 SC 2463 and (1976) 4 SCC 177 ref. C.V. Rajan for Petitioner. P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for Respondents. R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J.‑‑‑The Revenue's contention is that exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth Act,. 1957, cannot be granted in respect of the share of the partner in a building owned by the firm. The building in this case being a hotel and the assessment years in this case being 1983‑84 to 1985‑
86. The subsidiary contention is that the building in respect of which the exemption can be granted should be a residential building and not a commercial building. The Tribunal has held otherwise. The Tribunal has relied on the decisions of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Jagdish Chandra Grover v. CWT (1985) 156 ITR 560 and Ravi Mohan v. CWT (1989) 1.80 ITR 667 and has held that though the building is a commercial building, the building being a hotel, the exemption sought for can be granted. This Court in the case of CWT v. Thavamani (1999) 237 ITR 152 after referring to the earlier decisions of this Court and also the decision of the Supreme Court in Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. Gram Panchayat, AIR 1976 SC 2463; (1976) 4 SCC 177 has held that the expression "house" is not limited to a structure designed for human habitation and that a workshop building can also be regarded as a house for the purpose of section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. In so far as the claim of the partner in respect of a building owned by the firm is concerned, this Court in the decision reported as R. Venkatavaradha Reddiar v. CWT (1995) 214 ITR 76 has held that the partner is entitled to the exemption, even though the property may be owned by the firm. We, therefore, hold that the decision of the Tribunal is in accordance with the law declared by this Court. We do not find any justification in calling for a reference in respect of the matters covered by the decisions of this Court, tax case petitions are, therefore, dismissed. No costs. M.B.A./518/FC Petitions dismissed.