https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39432 Section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 uses aggregation of the interests of lineal descendants only as a rate-fixing mechanism for coparcenary property, not as a separate levy of duty. The provision was held to satisfy article 14 because fiscal classifications are permissible where they rest on an intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the statutory object. The distinction between Mitakshara coparceners with male lineal descendants and those without was linked to the differing incidents of Hindu joint family property and succession, and the aggregation was treated as a measure to reduce disparity in estate duty incidence and prevent concentration of wealth. The provision was therefore upheld as constitutional. en-us Tue, 15 Apr 1975 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 Apr 2010 13:30:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39432 Section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 uses aggregation of the interests of lineal descendants only as a rate-fixing mechanism for coparcenary property, not as a separate levy of duty. The provision was held to satisfy article 14 because fiscal classifications are permissible where they rest on an intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the statutory object. The distinction between Mitakshara coparceners with male lineal descendants and those without was linked to the differing incidents of Hindu joint family property and succession, and the aggregation was treated as a measure to reduce disparity in estate duty incidence and prevent concentration of wealth. The provision was therefore upheld as constitutional. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 15 Apr 1975 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39432