Judgment N.K.Sud, J. 1. This order will dispose of six appeals, viz., I. T. A. Nos. 38, 39, 44, 48, 54 and 81 of 2001, involving common questions of law and facts. Since arguments were advanced in I. T. A. No. 39 of 2001, the facts have been taken from the same. 2. The assessee is a private limited company. It filed its return of income for the assessment year 1989-90 declaring an income of Rs. 1,93,810 on December 28, 1989. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the respondent-company had received share of income from two trusts : namely, Satya Nand Trust No. 1 and Brij Mohan Lal Trust No. 1. The said trusts also held equity shares of M/s. Hero Cycles Limited. Accordingly, the share received from the trusts by the assessee included share in dividend income received by the trusts from M/s. Hero Cycles Limited. In addition to the income from the trusts, the assessee had its own income from other sources including dividend. The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80M of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), in respect of dividend income received by it directly and also share of dividend received from the two trusts. The Assessing Officer allowed the claim for deduction only in respect of dividend received by the assessee-company directly. In respect of the dividend received from the trusts, it was held that the same was not in the nature of dividend income but income from the trusts and, therefore, the same did not qualify for deduction under Section 80M of the Act. 3. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who vide his order dated February 3, 1992, allowed the assessees claim that the share of dividend received from the trusts continued to retain its character as dividend income in the hands of the assessee, entitling it to claim deduction under Section 80M of the Act. For this purpose, he placed reliance on the provisions of Section 67A of the Act and also on a direct authority of the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. [1985] 156 ITR 314. 4. For this purpose, he placed reliance on the provisions of Section 67A of the Act and also on a direct authority of the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. [1985] 156 ITR 314. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal which has been dismissed vide the impugned order dated November 17, 1999, and the findings of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) affirmed. Hence, this appeal. 5. Mr. A.S. Tewatia, learned counsel for the Revenue, has strongly relied on the contentions raised by the Revenue before the Tribunal. He states that the shares held by the trusts were not in the name of the assessee, therefore, it could not be said that the assessee had earned the income from dividend from another domestic company which is an essential requirement for claiming deduction under Section 80M of the Act. 6. Mr. Akshay Bhan, learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, supported the findings recorded by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal. He further placed reliance on CIT v. Trustees, T. Stanes and Co. Ltd., Staff Pension Fund [1993] 200 ITR 396 (Mad); CIT v. Gopalkrishna M. Singre [1995] 214 ITR 443 (Bom) and CIT v. T. Stanes and Co. Ltd., Staff Pension Fund [1995] 216 ITR 433 (Mad). We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the orders of the authorities below and we are satisfied that in view of the clear provisions of law, the findings recorded by the Tribunal need no interference. 7. Section 67A of the Act, which was inserted by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1989, with effect from April 1, 1989, clinches the issue. Sub-section (2) of this section reads as under : "(2) The share of a member in the income or loss of the association or body, as computed under Sub-section (1) shall, for the purposes of assessment, be apportioned under the various heads of income in the same manner in which the income or loss of the association or body has been determined under each head of income." 8. A plain reading of the above shows that the share of a member in the income or loss of the association or body, for the purposes of assessment, has to be apportioned under various heads of income in the same manner in which the income or loss of the association or body has been determined. Thus, the income from the trusts received by the assessee also had to be apportioned under various heads and if that is done, it is not in dispute that the deductions claimed by the assessee would fall under the head "Dividend". 9. Prior to this, when a partner was assessable in respect of the share of income from the firm, a similar provision existed in the statute in terms of Section 67. In the said provision also, Sub-section (2) provided that the share of the partner in the income or loss of the firm, as computed for the purposes of assessment has to be apportioned in the same manner in which the income or loss of the firm had been determined under each head of income. The Bombay High Court in the case of Gopalkrishna M. Singre [1995] 214 ITR 443 has interpreted the said provision in the same manner in the context of the share of a partner in the firm. The other authorities relied upon by the assessee also directly cover the issue in his favour. 10. In view of the above, we are satisfied that the view taken by the Tribunal is in accordance with the clear provisions of law and requires no interference. We are, therefore, of the view that no substantial question of law arises for consideration by this court. 11. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.