https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58260 Section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 was treated as constitutionally valid because the majority judicial view of the High Courts supported validity, and that view was preferred over the contrary Madras view. The Tribunal noted that no Bombay High Court decision was shown against validity, and a dismissal of special leave in another matter did not justify rejecting the prevailing line of authority, particularly when the constitutional question was already pending before the Supreme Court in a separate case. The aggregation of lineal descendants' interests in the Mitakshara coparcenary was therefore restored and the assessee's challenge failed. en-us Thu, 02 Aug 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 Dec 2010 11:56:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58260 Section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 was treated as constitutionally valid because the majority judicial view of the High Courts supported validity, and that view was preferred over the contrary Madras view. The Tribunal noted that no Bombay High Court decision was shown against validity, and a dismissal of special leave in another matter did not justify rejecting the prevailing line of authority, particularly when the constitutional question was already pending before the Supreme Court in a separate case. The aggregation of lineal descendants' interests in the Mitakshara coparcenary was therefore restored and the assessee's challenge failed. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 02 Aug 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58260