https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37233 Section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act was applied to aggregate a coparcenary interest in Mitakshara joint family property, and the Hindu Succession Act was held not to abolish coparcenary rights because its section 6 fiction is limited in scope. Estate duty payable under section 5 was treated as neither a deductible debt nor an encumbrance in computing the principal value of the estate. For valuation, municipal annual value under the U.P. rent control law was held to be an unsafe basis for fixing market value, because that regime did not impose the same rent ceiling or penal consequences as the other control law considered. The adopted son's share was aggregated, estate duty was not deductible, and the municipal multiple method was rejected. en-us Tue, 16 Oct 1979 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 27 Mar 2010 15:43:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37233 Section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act was applied to aggregate a coparcenary interest in Mitakshara joint family property, and the Hindu Succession Act was held not to abolish coparcenary rights because its section 6 fiction is limited in scope. Estate duty payable under section 5 was treated as neither a deductible debt nor an encumbrance in computing the principal value of the estate. For valuation, municipal annual value under the U.P. rent control law was held to be an unsafe basis for fixing market value, because that regime did not impose the same rent ceiling or penal consequences as the other control law considered. The adopted son's share was aggregated, estate duty was not deductible, and the municipal multiple method was rejected. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 16 Oct 1979 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37233