https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69629 The additional amount payable under rule 33A of the General Provident Fund (Central Services) Rules was held not to form part of the principal value of the estate under sections 6 and 15 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. The amount arose by operation of the rule, not from any power of disposition vested in the deceased, and the nomination power under the provident fund rules extended only to the subscriber's own credit balance, not to the additional rule 33A payment. As the deceased could not nominate a person different from the one entitled to the provident fund balance, the amount was not property over which he was competent to dispose at death. The taxpayer-favourable construction in case of doubt supported exclusion. en-us Fri, 11 Jun 1982 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Apr 2011 11:15:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69629 The additional amount payable under rule 33A of the General Provident Fund (Central Services) Rules was held not to form part of the principal value of the estate under sections 6 and 15 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. The amount arose by operation of the rule, not from any power of disposition vested in the deceased, and the nomination power under the provident fund rules extended only to the subscriber's own credit balance, not to the additional rule 33A payment. As the deceased could not nominate a person different from the one entitled to the provident fund balance, the amount was not property over which he was competent to dispose at death. The taxpayer-favourable construction in case of doubt supported exclusion. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 11 Jun 1982 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69629