CHANDRAKANTARAJ URS, J. ( 1 ) IN this Reference Case, the Tribunal somewhat strangely has referred the following question for answer by us under Section 256 (1) of the income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'act'):"whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate tribunal is justified in holding that the limit of - permissible deduction of entertainment expenditure under Section 37 (2-A) should be applied not only with reference to the income computed under Section 28, but also taking into account the income computed under the head "interest on securities", if the securities are held as stock-in-trade?" ( 2 ) FOR the assessment year 1978-79, the assessce Vysya Bank Limited, Bangalore claimedthat in determining the limit of permissible deduction under Section 37 (2-A), the limit stated therein should be applied not only with reference to the income to be computed under Section 28 under the head "profit and gains of business" before the allowance of such expenditure, but also taking into account the income computed under the head "interest on securities". The Income-tax officer repelled that contention and allowed the relief of Rs. 5,000/- as entertainment expenditure under Section 37 (2-A) of the Act as against the claim made in the sum of Rs. 81,109/ -. On appeal to the Commissioner, the Commissioner of Appeals held that section 37 (2-A) provided that a deduction under that Section shall be determined on the basis of the income assessable under the head "profits and gains from business" and notwithstanding in what manner the expenditure is apportioned between business income and interest on securities, the deduction under Section 37 (2-A) should be wholly determined by the income under the head "profits and gains from business", and the entertainment expenditure admissible, he held, was Rs. 11,157/ -. He therefore directed the Income-tax Officer to consider the sum of Rs. 11,157/- for allocation between business income and interest on securities. Not being satisfied with that order, assessee appealed to the Appellate Tribunal. It was urged that interest on securities are quired to be charged under specific head because of the provisions of the Act, but that would not alter the character of such income as income arising from profits and gains of the business carried on by the Assessee which is a Banking concern. It was urged that interest on securities are quired to be charged under specific head because of the provisions of the Act, but that would not alter the character of such income as income arising from profits and gains of the business carried on by the Assessee which is a Banking concern. Therefore, reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v Cocanada Radhaswami bank Ltd. , 57 ITR 306. As against that contention, the Revenue - before the Tribunal contended that the decision of the High Court of madras in the case of Commissioner of Income taxes v Indian Overseas Bank, 123 ITR 790 was more to the point and directly on the question and therefore, the view taken by the Commissioner of Appeals was correct and did not call for interference. On such rival contentions, the tribunal appears to have come to the conclusion that the Commissioner of Appeals should have ascertained as to the manner in which the securities were held as investment made by it i. e. , stock in trade or in some other capacity. Nevertheless, after setting aside the order of the Commissioner, the Tribunal has referred the question to us as extracted earlier in the course of this order. ( 3 ) WE find that the Tribunal was not correct in directing the Commissioner to ascertain the character and nature of the holding by the Bank of the securities because, admittedly, the income derived was shown as the income in the Bank in the course of its business. If that was not disputed, then the security belonged to the Bank and investments made by it in the course of its business. There was no reason to investigate the fact as to in what manner securities came to be secured or acquired. ( 4 ) IN the relevant assessment year, it is not in dispute before us, that the income under securities fell under Section 14 (B) while the other income from banking business - other than the investments, interest on securities fell under Section 14 (D) i. e. , income from profits and gains of its business and profession. ( 4 ) IN the relevant assessment year, it is not in dispute before us, that the income under securities fell under Section 14 (B) while the other income from banking business - other than the investments, interest on securities fell under Section 14 (D) i. e. , income from profits and gains of its business and profession. Section 14 itself clearly indicates that income is classified into in the relevant year under A, B, C, D, E and F. In addition to that, if one looks at the scheme of the Act, other types of income i. e. special source of income like from shipping business etc. are also taxable income. (See Sections 44 (B) and 172 of the Act ). Therefore, it is not difficult to reasonably conclude that the legislative intent is to classify the income under various heads and permit such income to be assessed in the manner provided in the machinery provisions of the Act for the purpose of computation and recovery of tax. One such provision made to compute the income is Section 37 of the Act. Section 37 has relation to by the language employed to the 'income of profits and gains from business or profession'. Whereas at the relevant time, computation of income and assessment of income from interest an securities was under Sections 18,19 and 20 of the Act. Section 20 permitted certain allowance which along was admissible to income by way of interest on securities and not available to other incomes under other heads. Therefore, if an assessee has income from more than one source, each of his income from different sources has to be assessed having regard to the provisions which govern the computation of that income and allowances permissible to that source of that income. It is not unusual that assessee may derive income by way of salary, by way of house-property, by way of private lands, by way of business, by way of profession and capital gains etc. Viewed thus, It would not be open to the Bank to claim the benefit of classification of its income under two different - heads for the sold purpose of claiming - benefit of Section 37 (2-A) of the Act to be one type of Income falling under single head viz. , "gain from business and profession. Viewed thus, It would not be open to the Bank to claim the benefit of classification of its income under two different - heads for the sold purpose of claiming - benefit of Section 37 (2-A) of the Act to be one type of Income falling under single head viz. , "gain from business and profession. " ( 5 ) IN this context, we should not fail to notice that reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the assessee before us on the decision of the supreme Court in Cocanada Radhaswami Bank ltd. 's case is in-apposite. In that case, what was explained by the Supreme Court was the totality of the taxable income under various heads. The supreme Court did not examine the scope for claiming allowance under relevant provisions of the Act, for the purpose of relief. Therefore, that decision cannot assist the assessee in furthering the contention that all sources of income must have the benefit of Section 37 (2-A ). ( 6 ) THE very question was considered by the madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras v Indian Overseas Bank supra. In that case, for the assessment year 1965-66, as against the assessee's claim for allowance of Rs. 28,252/- under Section 37 (2) of the Income tax Act, 1961, out of a total sum of Rs. 80,427/- incurred by it, as entertainment expenditure, the i. T. O. allowed only a sum of Rs. 24,763/- and disallowed the balance of Rs. 3,489/ -. During the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal the assessee claimed that as against its claim of rs. 3,489/-, it would be entitled to an allowance of Rs. 8,565/- under the head "interest on securities". That claim for allowance of a higher amount was upheld by the Tribunal. On a reference of the question which is as follows:"whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it has been rightly held that in computing the admissible deduction under Section 37 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the interest on securities should also be considered as business income?"the Madras High Court answered the question in the negative. In other words, in the operative portion of the order, their Lordships of the madras High Court held that the assessee was eligible only for the allowance of Rs. 24,763/- by way of entertainment expense. In other words, in the operative portion of the order, their Lordships of the madras High Court held that the assessee was eligible only for the allowance of Rs. 24,763/- by way of entertainment expense. Apportionment of that amount had to be allowed under Section 28 taken from interests and securities and the balance would be considered as profits from business. In other words, while the amount allowed under Section 37 to determine the same, the apportionment was directed considering that the incomes in respect of which the claim arose was under different heads of income and only permissible allowance under the relevant heads should be allowed. We are in agreement with that reasoning and on the admitted facts of this case, we also answer the question in the negative against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. --- *** --- .