https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35830 Section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act was upheld as a valid rate-fixing provision, not as a separate charge on the property of lineal descendants in Mitakshara joint family property. The classification between a coparcener dying with lineal descendants and one dying without them was found to rest on a reasonable differentia linked to the statutory object of correcting disparity in the incidence of duty and reducing inequalities in wealth distribution. The provision was held to operate within the legislative scheme and not to exceed section 5 or offend article 14. The constitutional challenge therefore failed. en-us Wed, 14 May 1980 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Mar 2010 10:44:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35830 Section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act was upheld as a valid rate-fixing provision, not as a separate charge on the property of lineal descendants in Mitakshara joint family property. The classification between a coparcener dying with lineal descendants and one dying without them was found to rest on a reasonable differentia linked to the statutory object of correcting disparity in the incidence of duty and reducing inequalities in wealth distribution. The provision was held to operate within the legislative scheme and not to exceed section 5 or offend article 14. The constitutional challenge therefore failed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 14 May 1980 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35830