https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7704 Writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be invoked against a provisional estate-duty determination where the Act provides a self-contained remedial hierarchy and the objection can be raised before the assessing authority and through statutory remedies. Section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act was also upheld against an Article 14 challenge: the aggregation rule was treated as a rational tax mechanism because a Dayabhaga share is already defined, while a Mitakshara interest is not separately crystallised in the same way. The provision was viewed as equalising the basis of taxation rather than creating discrimination. en-us Thu, 17 Oct 1968 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Mar 2009 17:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7704 Writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be invoked against a provisional estate-duty determination where the Act provides a self-contained remedial hierarchy and the objection can be raised before the assessing authority and through statutory remedies. Section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act was also upheld against an Article 14 challenge: the aggregation rule was treated as a rational tax mechanism because a Dayabhaga share is already defined, while a Mitakshara interest is not separately crystallised in the same way. The provision was viewed as equalising the basis of taxation rather than creating discrimination. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 17 Oct 1968 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7704