1995 (1) TMI 56

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ts order dated February 10, 1983: " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the share of lineal descendants in the self-occupied property was liable to be excluded from the principal estate of the assessee for rate purposes under section 34(1)(c) of the Estate A Duty Act, 1953 ? " The brief facts of the case are that the deceased....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CED v. Estate of late Durga Prasad Beharilal [1979] 116 ITR 692. The order of the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty was accepted by the Tribunal and it was observed that the self-occupied portion which was used by the deceased was exempt. Except the deceased and his family, no stranger lived in the self-occupied portion. The part of the house which exclu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... deceased to the extent which passes on his death which is exempt. It is his share alone which passes on his death and, therefore, the exemption contemplated in section 33(1)(n) is restricted to the share of the deceased. Under section 34(1)(c), the value of the share of the lineal descendants of the deceased in the coparcenary property has to be aggregated with the principal value of the estate o....