https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23250 Under the Estate Duty Act, 1953, the Madras HC followed its earlier precedent and held that property admitted by the accountable person could be included in the principal value of the deceased's estate under section 10 read with section 27. It also held that a coparcener's throwing of personal property into the family hotchpot amounted to a disposition within Explanation 2 to section 2(15). On rate aggregation, the court noted that section 34(1)(c) had already been struck down as unconstitutional under Article 14, so it could not be used to aggregate the lineal descendants' share for rate purposes. en-us Wed, 28 Mar 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Dec 2009 17:36:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23250 Under the Estate Duty Act, 1953, the Madras HC followed its earlier precedent and held that property admitted by the accountable person could be included in the principal value of the deceased's estate under section 10 read with section 27. It also held that a coparcener's throwing of personal property into the family hotchpot amounted to a disposition within Explanation 2 to section 2(15). On rate aggregation, the court noted that section 34(1)(c) had already been struck down as unconstitutional under Article 14, so it could not be used to aggregate the lineal descendants' share for rate purposes. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 28 Mar 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23250