Three disputes are involved in this appeal. first relates to assessee's claim for exemption under s. 5(1)(iv) of WT Act in respect of her interest in firm Jawala Prosad Amarnath in which she is partner. It was contended on behalf of assessee that firm owned immovable property in which assessee's share came to Rs. 1,06,603 out of which she was entitled to deduction under s. 5(1)(iv) of Act to tune of Rs. 1,00,000. This claim has been negatived both by WTO and AAC on ground that it is firm which owns property and not assessee. next dispute relates to value of shares held by assessee in M/s G.K. & Sons which was taken by WTO at Rs. 2,34,990 being face value thereof. On behalf of assessee it was contended before AAC that market value of these shares should have been determined according to WT Rules and deduction of 15 per cent should have been allowed as provided for therein. AAC, however, rejected this contention on ground that deduction was allowable only when valuation was made by break up method under r. 1D of WT Rules. In present case company was new and market value of share could not be different from face value. This conclusion has been challenged by assessee in her second ground of appeal before us. last dispute relates to market value of jewellery held by assessee. WTO noticed that as per valuer's certificate value of same was estimated at Rs. 1,53,700 as on 31st March, 1972. For asst. yr. 1976-77 value as per valuer's certificate in Nov., 1975 was Rs. 2,54,800. Having regard to respective rates of gold, value on relevant valuation date should have been taken at Rs. 2,33,700. On appeal, AAC referred to argument of assessee's representative that for immediately succeeding year i.e., 1975-76 value of jewellery had been estimated at Rs. 2,00,000. He, therefore, estimated same at Rs. 1,75,000 for this year. assessee is, however, still dissatisfied and has challenged same in her third ground of appeal before us. We have heard representative of parties on all these three matters. So far as first dispute is concerned representative of assessee referred to decision of Orissa High Court in CWT vs. I. Butchi Krishna 1977 CTR (Ori) 299: (1979) 119 ITR 8 (Ori) wherein High Court has held that deduction has to be made out of share of individual in deposits held by firm under s. 5 of WT Act. This was also view taken by Madras High Court in CWT vs. Vasantha (1973) 87 ITR 17 (Mad) and Karnataka High Court in CWT vs. Mrs. Christine Cardoza (1978) 114 ITR 532 (Kar). contrary view, however, was taken by Madras High Court in case of Purushothamdas Gocooldas vs. CWT 1976 CTR (Mad) 361: (1976) 104 ITR 608 (Mad) wherein it was held that assessees are not entitled to any deduction on account of their supposed share in house property owned by firm of which they were partners. representative of Department also referred to judgment of Calcutta High Court in Sarvamangala Properties Ltd. vs. CIT (1973) 90 ITR 267 (Cal) for proposition that firm has distinct entity in IT Law as against partners thereof. We, however, find that all authorities should be deemed to be obsolete in view of clear-cut language used by framers of WT Act. It has been distinctly provided for in cl. (b) of s. 4(1) of WT Act that where assessee is partner in firm value of his interest in firm is to be determined in prescribed manner. According to s. 2 (n) 'prescribed' means prescribed by rules under Act. Now for determining value of interest of person in firm in which he is partner there is specific r. 2 of WT Rules which is further qualified by r. 2A to r. 2B. According to sub-r. (1) of r. 2 net wealth of firm has to be first determined. word, 'net wealth' would naturally imply that firm itself would get exemption under s. 5 of WT Act but thereafter, assessee would not get any separate exemption as no such exemption is contemplated by this rule. This matter has been thoroughly considered and so held by Andhra Pradesh High Court in its order dt. 31st March, 1980 in CWT vs. Narendra Ranjalker (1981) 129 ITR 203 (AP). In fact some of Benches of Tribunal have already been taking this view of matter that firm is entitled to exemption under s. 5 but not partners separately. We, therefore, direct that in computing net wealth of firm under r. 2 exemptions available to it shall be granted in accordance with law. Thereafter, assessee will not be entitled to get any further exemption under s. 5(1) (iv) of WT Act. ground raised is partly allowed in these terms. Qua second ground we find that there are specific rr. 1C, 1D and 1E for computing market value of shares in various kinds of companies for purpose of s. 7(1) of WT Act. According to s. 7(1) market value of any asset has to be determined subject to rules made in this behalf. We, therefore, accept this ground to extent that market value of shares shall be determined in accordance with these rules and reduction of 15 per cent as provided for in rule is to be allowed on break up value as determined thereunder. ground is allowed in these terms. Coming to third ground we find that in immediately succeeding year value of jewellery has been taken at Rs. 2,00,000 whereas in immediately preceding year value was taken at Rs. 1,53,700. value in this year should, therefore, be estimated at Rs. 1,76,000 and odd. AAC has already taken at Rs. 1,75,000. Therefore, there is no ground for us to interfere. This ground is, therefore, rejected. In result, appeals are partly allowed as above. *** SMT. UMA KEJRIWAL v. WEALTH-TAX OFFICER