https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26298 Section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act could not support inclusion of a lineal descendant's share in the principal value of the estate after that provision had been struck down as violative of Article 14, so the clubbing of that share was not sustainable. The Tribunal was also competent to entertain a new legal ground not raised before the assessing or first appellate authority, because its appellate jurisdiction is wide and extends to deciding the correct tax liability on material already on record, especially where the ground gives effect to a binding constitutional ruling. The accountable person therefore succeeded on both issues. en-us Wed, 15 Dec 1982 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 Feb 2010 11:01:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26298 Section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act could not support inclusion of a lineal descendant's share in the principal value of the estate after that provision had been struck down as violative of Article 14, so the clubbing of that share was not sustainable. The Tribunal was also competent to entertain a new legal ground not raised before the assessing or first appellate authority, because its appellate jurisdiction is wide and extends to deciding the correct tax liability on material already on record, especially where the ground gives effect to a binding constitutional ruling. The accountable person therefore succeeded on both issues. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 15 Dec 1982 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26298