https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9248 Section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act was upheld as a valid aggregation mechanism for determining the rate of estate duty on property deemed to pass on death. The Court reasoned that Parliament's estate duty power under the Constitution extends to valuation and rate fixation, and the provision did not tax a surviving coparcener's pre-existing interest. The Court also held that the classification between Mitakshara and other coparceners rested on real differences in Hindu law and had a rational nexus with the object of the levy, so the provision did not violate Article 14. The constitutional challenge therefore failed. en-us Mon, 13 Mar 1972 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Jun 2009 16:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9248 Section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act was upheld as a valid aggregation mechanism for determining the rate of estate duty on property deemed to pass on death. The Court reasoned that Parliament's estate duty power under the Constitution extends to valuation and rate fixation, and the provision did not tax a surviving coparcener's pre-existing interest. The Court also held that the classification between Mitakshara and other coparceners rested on real differences in Hindu law and had a rational nexus with the object of the levy, so the provision did not violate Article 14. The constitutional challenge therefore failed. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 13 Mar 1972 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9248