1982 (9) TMI 161

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the value of Rs. 95,870. The asst CED while including the lineal descendants share of rate purposes did not exclude the value of the residential house while arriving at the value of the joint family property. In the words, the Asstt. CED felt that while determining the share of the lineal descendants, no reduction under s. 33(1) (n) of the ED Act was permissible. The appellate CED relying on the d .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he ld. Deptl. Rep. on the other hand, submitted that s 34(1) relates to aggregation for purposes of charging estate duty. Even exempt property like agricultural land in States not specified in the Schedule ought to be taken into account. The exemption under the various cls. of s. 33(1) applied only to the property of the deceased. Sec. 34(1)(c) merely mentions that the interest of the deceased a s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... has not considered the effect of s. 34(1)(a) and it overriding nature. On the contrary, the Allahabad High Court has held as follows: "It was faintly urged that under cl. (C) the interest in the joint family property of the lineal descendants of the deceased member, in the case of a property consisting of coparcenary interest in the joint family property of a Hindu Family governed by the Mitaksha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X