https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58562 Section 33(1)(n) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 was construed to require a house to be used as a residence, but not occupied exclusively by the deceased to the exclusion of family members or co-owners. A narrow reading that would deny exemption merely because others also lived in the house was rejected as inconsistent with the legislative purpose of the relief. On that construction, the exemption extended to the deceased's one-fourth share in the portion of the jointly owned Baroda house used by him for residence, and the contrary view of the lower authorities was reversed. en-us Mon, 25 Jun 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 20 Dec 2010 16:05:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58562 Section 33(1)(n) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 was construed to require a house to be used as a residence, but not occupied exclusively by the deceased to the exclusion of family members or co-owners. A narrow reading that would deny exemption merely because others also lived in the house was rejected as inconsistent with the legislative purpose of the relief. On that construction, the exemption extended to the deceased's one-fourth share in the portion of the jointly owned Baroda house used by him for residence, and the contrary view of the lower authorities was reversed. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 25 Jun 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58562