Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2004 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2004 (8) TMI 67 - HC - Income TaxEstate Duty Act, 1953 - "1. Whether Tribunal was justified in law in holding that section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, was not applicable in the present case?" - Smt. Anaro Devi whose estate is being subjected to duty died on January 1, 1981, i.e., after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, had come into force. She by no stretch of imagination can be treated as a coparcener. - With the introduction of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the provisions of the 1937 Act have been deleted and hence not right to demand partition by a Hindu widow does not exist. - Thus, a female is only a member of the HUF and is not a coparcener. - In this view of the matter, a Hindu widow has no right to demand partition and is only treated as member of a Hindu undivided family. The provisions of section 34(1)(c) of the Act is not applicable as it applies to a case of a coparcener. The Tribunal has rightly held in favour of the accountable person – revenue appeal dismissed
|