Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.20 seconds)Addanki Narayanappa & Anr vs Bhaskara Krishtappa And 13 Ors on 21 January, 1966
4. In this case, as already noticed, the Wealth-tax Officer included the value of the interest of each of the individual assessees in the firm of Gocooldas Jamnadas and Company, Madras, in determining their net wealth. In fact, it was not in dispute that No. 8, Nowroji Road, Madras, was a partnership asset at the relevant date. If that is so, we are unable
to see how individual partners could claim any specified right in this specified immovable property as belonging to them. In the case of a partnership asset it is well settled that no partner could claim to have any specific interest exclusively apart from his interest as a partner in the firm as such. His interest in the partnership cannot also be considered as immovable property as his right is only to a share in the division of the partnership assets on dissolution. The Supreme Court in the decision reported in Addanki Narayanappa v. Bhaskara Krishnappa, . considered the relative rights of the partners with reference to the partnership assets and observed thus:
Section 4 in The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Section 27 in The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Controller Of Estate Duty vs Estate Of Late Sanka Simhachalam (By ... on 26 June, 1974
6. Therefore, the assessees in this case cannot claim to be entitled to any portion of this house property as exclusively belonging to them. The learned counsel for the assessees may be well founded in his contention if the words "belonging to the assessee" in Section 5(1)(iv) would take in not only the right as a full owner, but also the interest of a life interest holder or any other partial interest as held in Controller of Estate Duty v. Estate of Late Sanka Simhachalam, . But that question does not arise for consideration in this case as the property is an asset of the partnership firm and was not owned by a group of individuals in their own right. We are, therefore, of the view that the Tribunal was right in its conclusion that the assessees in each of these cases were not entitled to claim exemption under Section 5(1)(iv) in respect of house No. 8, Nowroji Road, Madras. We, accordingly, answer the reference in the affirmative and against the assessees. The revenue will be entitled to its costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 250.
1