https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283588 Section 8, as amended in 1956, required a special computation for income from interest on securities and a proportionate reclassification of certain banking expenses, but it did not show a legislative intent to cut down the balance of deductions otherwise allowable under section 10(2). The text indicates that the amendment only split the allowable item between sections 8 and 10, and that exempt income under section 4(3)(xvii) could not, without clear statutory language, trigger an implied apportionment disallowance of related business deductions. On that reasoning, the proportional disallowance of the banking company's claimed expense was not justified. en-us Wed, 12 Sep 1962 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 Oct 2019 11:19:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283588 Section 8, as amended in 1956, required a special computation for income from interest on securities and a proportionate reclassification of certain banking expenses, but it did not show a legislative intent to cut down the balance of deductions otherwise allowable under section 10(2). The text indicates that the amendment only split the allowable item between sections 8 and 10, and that exempt income under section 4(3)(xvii) could not, without clear statutory language, trigger an implied apportionment disallowance of related business deductions. On that reasoning, the proportional disallowance of the banking company's claimed expense was not justified. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 12 Sep 1962 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283588