1978 (8) TMI 22

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ns. In these proceedings we are concerned with the coparcenary interest passing on his death. Before the Asst. CED, it was contended by the accountable person that only 1/4th interest in the joint family property passed on the death of Govinda Bhat on the basis that the wife of Govinda Bhat also had a share in the joint family property. The Asst. CED rejected the said contention. The Appellate CED also rejected it in the appeal filed by the accountable person. Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Controller, the accountable person filed an appeal before the Tribunal, Bangalore Bench. In that appeal, in addition to the contention referred to above, he raised a further contention that by virtue of s. 33(1)(n) of the Act, the value of the i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... question in the following way : " Section 33(1)(n) of the Act has no relevance to the computation of the value of the interest of the deceased in the coparcenary property under s. 39. Where the residential house belongs to a HUF governed by Mitakshara, only the share of the deceased in such house is exempt from estate duty under s. 33(1)(n). For purposes of rate of estate duty, the value of the share of the deceased in such house has to be excluded from the value of the property passing on his death under s. 34(1 )(a), but the value of the shares of all the lineal descendants of the deceased in the coparcenary property including the residential house has to be aggregated under s. 34(1)(c) without any reference to any exemption under s. ....