ORDER BY THE COURT : This is a reference called by this Court on application made by the Revenue under s. 256(2) of the IT Act from the Tribunal and the Tribunal has referred the following question of law for opinion of this Court : "Whether a partner is entitled to exemption under s. 80L of the IT Act in respect of interest earned by the firm on bank deposits held in its name ?" 2. The brief facts giving rise to this reference are thus : The assessees/non-applicants are partners in M/s P. D. & Company, Raipur, which firm had deposits in the bank yielding interest income, which was assessed in the hands of the said firm and the share income of the aforesaid three partners including interest income was assessed in the hands of the said partners. The said partners had claimed deduction under s. 80L of the IT Act for the part of the interest income from the bank which was included in the share income from the firm, but the said claim was rejected by the ITO on the ground that the said partners were not owners of the bank deposits as the deposits were not in the name of the partners, but in the name of the firm, which was a separate entity. 3. Against the assessment order, the assessees preferred an appeal before the AAC, Raipur and the AAC accepted the claim of the assessees and directed the ITO to allow the deduction under s. 80L of the IT Act. Against this, the applicant/Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal dismissed the Departmental appeal and upheld the order of the AAC. Thereafter, the Revenue moved an application for making a reference to this Court which was rejected by the Tribunal. Therefore, the CIT approached this Court for calling reference under s. 256(2) of the IT Act and, accordingly, this reference was called by this Court and the aforesaid question was referred for answer of this Court. 4. Suffice it to say that in view of the amendment in sub-s. (3) of s. 80L of the IT Act, the controversy has now come to an end. This amendment was brought by Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984 and it was made retrospective effect i.e. from 1st April, 1976. 4. Suffice it to say that in view of the amendment in sub-s. (3) of s. 80L of the IT Act, the controversy has now come to an end. This amendment was brought by Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984 and it was made retrospective effect i.e. from 1st April, 1976. By this amendment, the following sub-s. (3) was inserted in s. 80L, which reads as under : "Sec. 80L(3) : For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where the income referred to in sub-s. (1) is derived from any asset held by, or on behalf of, a firm, an AOP or a BOI, no deduction shall be allowed under the said sub-section in respect of such income in computing the total income of any partner of the firm or any member of the association or body." Now, after this amendment, no deduction in the income of the partners out of the interest is permissible. Therefore, this reference has to be answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.