https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175223 Rule 3(2)(a) of the Orissa Agricultural Income-tax Rules, 1948 is analysed as a strictly construed deduction provision, and the commentary concludes that maintenance allowance paid to the present proprietor's son was not covered, even though he was also the grandson of the previous proprietor of an impartible estate. The drafting contrast between clauses referring expressly to relations of the present or previous proprietor and clauses omitting such reference is treated as deliberate, showing that omitted descendants in the male line cannot be read into the exemption. The note also states that the general rule favouring taxpayers in cases of ambiguity does not extend to enlarging a special tax relief beyond its clear language. en-us Fri, 15 Jul 1955 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 14 Nov 2015 15:29:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175223 Rule 3(2)(a) of the Orissa Agricultural Income-tax Rules, 1948 is analysed as a strictly construed deduction provision, and the commentary concludes that maintenance allowance paid to the present proprietor's son was not covered, even though he was also the grandson of the previous proprietor of an impartible estate. The drafting contrast between clauses referring expressly to relations of the present or previous proprietor and clauses omitting such reference is treated as deliberate, showing that omitted descendants in the male line cannot be read into the exemption. The note also states that the general rule favouring taxpayers in cases of ambiguity does not extend to enlarging a special tax relief beyond its clear language. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 15 Jul 1955 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175223