https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8230 Section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act was upheld against constitutional challenge because fiscal classification allows wide legislative discretion and the differing effects on varied factual situations did not amount to hostile discrimination under Articles 14, 19 or 31. The provision was also construed to apply to a Marumakkathayam tarwad, with "coparcenary interest" read contextually to cover the joint or undivided family interest intended by the statute. However, aggregation under section 34 operated only for rate purposes on a chargeable estate, so an estate whose principal value was below Rs. 50,000 was not liable to estate duty and the assessment could not stand. en-us Wed, 07 Apr 1971 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Apr 2009 11:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8230 Section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act was upheld against constitutional challenge because fiscal classification allows wide legislative discretion and the differing effects on varied factual situations did not amount to hostile discrimination under Articles 14, 19 or 31. The provision was also construed to apply to a Marumakkathayam tarwad, with "coparcenary interest" read contextually to cover the joint or undivided family interest intended by the statute. However, aggregation under section 34 operated only for rate purposes on a chargeable estate, so an estate whose principal value was below Rs. 50,000 was not liable to estate duty and the assessment could not stand. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 07 Apr 1971 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8230