https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175223 Maintenance paid to a present proprietor's son was not deductible under rule 3(2)(a) of the Orissa Agricultural Income-tax Rules, 1948, notwithstanding that he was also the previous proprietor's grandson. The deduction provisions were read with the maintenance scheme under the Madras Impartible Estates Act, 1904: clauses (a) and (d) omitted the present proprietor, whereas clauses (c) and (e) expressly included relations of both present and previous proprietors. This deliberate distinction excluded male-line descendants of the present proprietor from clause (a). As the provision created a special tax deduction, it required strict construction, and any claimed omitted class could not be added by interpretation. The deduction was therefore disallowed. 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 Maintenance paid to a present proprietor's son was not deductible under rule 3(2)(a) of the Orissa Agricultural Income-tax Rules, 1948, notwithstanding that he was also the previous proprietor's grandson. The deduction provisions were read with the maintenance scheme under the Madras Impartible Estates Act, 1904: clauses (a) and (d) omitted the present proprietor, whereas clauses (c) and (e) expressly included relations of both present and previous proprietors. This deliberate distinction excluded male-line descendants of the present proprietor from clause (a). As the provision created a special tax deduction, it required strict construction, and any claimed omitted class could not be added by interpretation. The deduction was therefore disallowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 15 Jul 1955 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175223