https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35820 A release by a coparcener of an unascertained interest in joint Hindu family movable property, without any actual partition, severance of status, or division by metes and bounds, does not amount to a disposition of property under Explanation 2 to section 2(15) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. The statutory fiction applies only where the extinguished right can be treated as property and its value can be precisely ascertained. Because no definite share existed in the undivided coparcenary and no notional partition was available for valuation, Explanation 2 could not operate, and inclusion of the amount in the principal value of the estate was unsustainable. en-us Tue, 07 Oct 1980 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Mar 2010 10:20:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35820 A release by a coparcener of an unascertained interest in joint Hindu family movable property, without any actual partition, severance of status, or division by metes and bounds, does not amount to a disposition of property under Explanation 2 to section 2(15) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. The statutory fiction applies only where the extinguished right can be treated as property and its value can be precisely ascertained. Because no definite share existed in the undivided coparcenary and no notional partition was available for valuation, Explanation 2 could not operate, and inclusion of the amount in the principal value of the estate was unsustainable. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 07 Oct 1980 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35820