9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (8) TMI 64X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of 1/4th share in the self-occupied house of the HUF of which the deceased was a coparcener in the estate ? 2. Whether, in view of the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the estate duty payable was not liable to be deducted from the total value of the estate ? " Out of these two questions one question, namely, question No. 2, is directly covered by a decision of this court in Smt. Shantaben Narottamdas v. CED [1978] 111 ITR 365. Following the said decision, this question, namely, question No. 2 shall have to be answered in the affirmative and against the accountable person. So far as question No. 1 is concerned, it does not bring out the real issue in controversy between the parties. What ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held to be exempt from inclusion in the dutiable estate, its value or part thereof cannot be included in the dutiable estate for any purpose, not even while computing the value of the interest of the lineal descendant in the property of the HUF which is includible in the dutiable estate for rate purposes under s. 34(1)(c). We do not see how exemption in respect of the house or part thereof used by the deceased for residence, to the extent the principal value whereof does not exceed rupees one lakh, has any relevance for the purpose of working out the value of the interest of the lineal descendants in the HUF property for rate purposes under, s. 34(1)(c). The deceased bad an one-fourth interest in the house of the HUF. The value of such inte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the deceased. We are unable to see how the exemption ranted under s. 33(1)(n) can be projected into s. 34(1)(c). Exemption from payment of estate duty under s. 33(1)(n) is in respect of a house or a part thereof used for residence by the deceased to the extent the principal value thereof does not exceed rupees one lakh. The purpose and object of the two provisions, namely, s. 33(1)(n) and s. 34(1)(c) are different and distinct. They operate in altogether different spheres. One of the two concerns itself with the question of identifying the " dutiable estate ". The other operates in the sphere of identifying the " rate " at which the dutiable estate is to be subjected to duty. These two need not be mixed up lest fusion should result in con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
