Judgment :- N.V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J. The tax cases relate to two asst. yrs. viz., 1978-79 and 1979-80. The points involved are common and the following two questions of law have been referred to us at the instance of the Department 1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that interest credited to the accounts of the family members of the assessee-HUF is not liable to be included in the assessee's income ? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction under s. 80L of the Act on the ground that the Malaysian income in the case of S. M. M. Muthappa Chettiar has been deleted from his total income and as a consequence the assessee ceased to be a specified HUF with a member having taxable income ? Insofar as the first question of law is concerned, the ITO allowed (sic-assessed) the interest credited to the accounts of certain family members of the HUF in the hands of the assessee on the ground that there was no valid partition and the amount continued to belong to the joint family. The AAC and the Tribunal held that the partial partition claimed by the assessee was valid and the amount set apart under the said partition did not belong to the assessee-family. The Tribunal followed its earlier orders and rejected the appeal by the Department The earlier order of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case, was the subject-matter of consideration before this Court in CIT/CWT/CGT vs. Muthappa Chettiar wherein this Court held that the finding of the Tribunal that there was a valid partition was legally correct and there was no ground to interfere and, therefore, a sum of Rs. 60, 000 kept as deposit did not belong to the joint family and the interest accruing on the said deposit cannot be regarded as an income to the joint family. Accordingly, we answer the first question of law referred to us in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assesseeInsofar as the second question of law is concerned, it relates to the grant of deduction under s. 80L of the Act. Accordingly, we answer the first question of law referred to us in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assesseeInsofar as the second question of law is concerned, it relates to the grant of deduction under s. 80L of the Act. The assessee is an HUF and one of its members S. M. M. Muthappa Chettiar had certain Malaysian income and the same was assessed in his individual status. The ITO denied the benefit of deduction under s. 80L of the Act, because the assessee had a member who had more than the taxable income in his individual assessment, and the assessee was a specified HUF. The AAC as well as the Tribunal held that as one of the members of the family, S. M. M. Muthappa Chettiar did not have any income exceeding the taxable limit, as the Malaysian income which was included in his individual assessment was deleted by the Tribunal in ITA No. 1267/Mad/1983, by order dt. 27th October, 1983, and the assessee cannot be regarded as a specified HUF. That earlier order of the Tribunal deleting the addition of Malaysian income in the hands of S. M. M. Muthappa Chettiar, a member of the assessee-family, came up for consideration before this Court in TC No. 136 of 1985 and this Court by its judgment dt. 15th March, 1994, held that the income from Malaysia cannot be subjected to tax in the hands of S. M. M. Muthappa Chettiar and consequently, the income was deleted in his assessment. The effect of the decision is that the assessee-family cannot be said to have a member who is having an income exceeding the taxable limit and the assessee-family cannot be regarded as a specified HUF disentitling it to claim the relief under s. 80L of the Act. We are of the view that the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction under s. 80L of the Act. We answer the second question of law also in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The assessee is entitled to costs.