<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1981 (3) TMI 4 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28233</link>
    <description>Section 39(3) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 requires the whole Hindu undivided family property to be valued by applying the Act as far as may be, so valuation exemptions cannot be postponed until after the deceased coparcener&#039;s and lineal descendant&#039;s shares are ascertained. The residential house exemption under section 33(1)(n) must therefore be given effect to at the valuation stage before working out the respective shares, because the same computation basis applies to both shares. The commentary states that the Department&#039;s attempt to ignore the exemption in computing the principal value was inconsistent with the statutory scheme.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Mar 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Feb 2010 18:12:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=67231" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (3) TMI 4 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28233</link>
      <description>Section 39(3) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 requires the whole Hindu undivided family property to be valued by applying the Act as far as may be, so valuation exemptions cannot be postponed until after the deceased coparcener&#039;s and lineal descendant&#039;s shares are ascertained. The residential house exemption under section 33(1)(n) must therefore be given effect to at the valuation stage before working out the respective shares, because the same computation basis applies to both shares. The commentary states that the Department&#039;s attempt to ignore the exemption in computing the principal value was inconsistent with the statutory scheme.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Mar 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28233</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>