9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (6) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... UGLA J. -In this reference at the instance of the Department, the question of law referred to this court reads thus : "Whether the shares of the sons of the deceased in the joint family property could be taken into account for the purpose of determining the rate of tax applicable in respect of the share of the deceased in the joint family properties as per section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he two sons of the deceased in the joint family assets for determining the rate of duty. Shri Jetley, learned counsel for the Department, submitted that the Tribunal was not justified in ignoring the provisions of section 34(1)(c). He pointed out that, when the Tribunal passed the impugned order on January 15, 1974, the Andhra Pradesh High Court had, in Smt. Komanduri Seshamma v Appellate CED [1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh Court in the case of CED v. P. K. Agarwalla [1988] 169 ITR 699, the Gauhati High Court in the case of CED v. Murarilal Sovasaria [1989] 175 ITR 417 and the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CED v. Suresh Kumar Mirani [1989] 179 ITR 577, have, in the recent past, it was stated, followed the Andhra Pradesh High Court decision. He argued that the question must, therefore, be answered in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... preme Court decision in K. S. Venkataraman and Co. (P.) Ltd. v. State of Madras [1966] 60 ITR 112 being that the Tribunal cannot consider the vires of the provisions of the Act under which it is constituted, the Tribunal could not have considered the question, far less ignored the provisions. Strictly speaking, this court cannot also go into this question in its reference jurisdiction, though, as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
