Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

C.W.T. versus S.P. KANODIA

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


C.W.T. v. S.P. Kanodia - WEALTH TAX REFERENCE No. 8 of 1993 [2006] RD-AH 15549 (7 September 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No.2

Wealth Tax Reference No.8 of 1993

Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur

v. Shri S.P.Kanodia, It is not in dispute that., Kanpur

Hon'ble R.K.Agrawal, J.

Hon'ble Vikram Nath, J.

(Delivered by R.K.Agrawal, J.)

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad has referred the following question of law under Section 57(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for opinion to this Court:-

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in allowing exemption to a partner of a firm under Section 5(1)(iv) of the W.T.Act, 1957 in respect of property owned by the firm?"

The reference relates to the Assessment Years 1972-73 to 1975-76 and 1978-79 to 1981-82.

Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:-

The assessee claimed exemption under Section 5(1)(iv) of the Act in respect of the building belonging to the firm in which the assessee was a partner. The Assessing Officer did not allow the exemption to the assessee. On appeal, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax allowed the exemption. Feeling aggrieved, the Department came up in appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal, following its decision dated 24.10.1991 in W.T.A. No.15 to 21(Alld.) of 1991, in the case of Smt. Premlata Kanodia, Kanpur, decide the issue in favour of the assessee.

We have heard Sri R.K.Upadhaya, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue, and Sri R.S.Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the assessee.

We find that the question raised herein is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Laxmi Dutt, (2003) 263 ITR 225, wherein this Court has held that a partner is entitled to exemption under Section 5(1)(iv) of the Act.

Respectfully following the aforesaid decision, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There shall be no order as to costs.

7.9.2006

vkp


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.