https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170441 Section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act was upheld as a valid rate-fixing provision. Parliament had legislative competence under Entry 87 of List I to enact estate duty provisions dealing with valuation and the rate of tax, and the aggregation rule operated only for determining the duty payable, not as a separate levy on the descendant's property. The provision also survived article 14 scrutiny because the distinction between Mitakshara and Dayabhaga coparcenary rights reflected real legal differences and had a rational nexus with the object of equalising estate duty incidence. The constitutional challenges on competence and discrimination therefore failed. en-us Thu, 24 Jun 1971 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 27 May 2015 18:21:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170441 Section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act was upheld as a valid rate-fixing provision. Parliament had legislative competence under Entry 87 of List I to enact estate duty provisions dealing with valuation and the rate of tax, and the aggregation rule operated only for determining the duty payable, not as a separate levy on the descendant's property. The provision also survived article 14 scrutiny because the distinction between Mitakshara and Dayabhaga coparcenary rights reflected real legal differences and had a rational nexus with the object of equalising estate duty incidence. The constitutional challenges on competence and discrimination therefore failed. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 24 Jun 1971 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170441