TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (8) TMI 67
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty Act, 1953, hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for the opinion to this court: "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, was not applicable in the present case?" Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows: Smt. Anaro Devi died on J....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The Department being aggrieved came up in appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The accountable person also preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated February 19, 1983 dismissed the appeal filed by the Department whereas it remanded the matter to the Estate Duty Officer for determining the question of the applicability....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owli Buddanna v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 293, a Hindu coparcenary is a much narrower body than the joint family, it includes only those persons who acquire by birth an interest in the joint or coparcenary property, these being the sons, grandsons and great-grandsons of the holder of the joint property for the time being. In Kalyanji Vithaldas v. CIT [1937] 5 ITR 90 (PC), Sir George Rankin delivering th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r rights by demanding partition; (3) that until partition, each member has got ownership extending over the entire property conjointly with the rest and so long as no partition takes place, it is difficult for any coparcener to predicate the share which he might receive; (4) that as a result of such co-ownership the possession and enjoyment of the property is common; (5) that there can be no al....