1984 (8) TMI 101

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ceased, in the case of property so passing which consists of a coparcenary interest in the joint family property of a Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, interest in the joint family property of all the lineal descendants of the deceased member shall be aggregated so as to form one estate and estate duty shall be levied thereon at the rate or rates applicable in respect of the principal value thereof. The Assistant Controller aggregated the interests of all the lineal descendants of the deceased under this provision. In the appeal filed by the accountable person, the Controller (Appeals) relied on the two decisions of the Tribunal rendered in 1975 and 1981 in which it was held, following the decision of the Madras High Court in V. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... R.K. Chettiar's case. 4. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that the question of constitutional validity of section 34(1)(c) had come up for consideration before a large number of High Courts. All the High Courts before whom this question came up for consideration, except the Madras High Court, have taken the view that the said section was not ultra vires the constitution. Thus, the preponderance of the judicial view is that the said provision is constitutionally valid. No decision of the Bombay High Court has been brought to our notice. In the circumstances, we deem in proper to follow the preponderant view which is found enunciated in the decisions of the other High Courts. As regards the dismissal of the special leave ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n the cases of V. Devaki Ammal and R.K. Chettiar, solely on the ground that the special, leave petition against the latter decision has been dismissed by the Supreme Court. 5. As far as the decisions of the Tribunal are concerned, those decisions are of the years 1975 and 1981. The learned representative for the assessee expressly stated before us that he was not aware of any decision of the Tribunal rendered in subsequent years which had followed the view of the Madras High Court in preference to the preponderance of the view of the other High Courts. At the time when the two decisions of the Tribunal were given in the years 1975 and 1981, the decisions of several other High Courts were not available before the Tribunal for consideratio....