assessee and her husband are partners in three firms. By invoking section 64 of Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') ITO has clubbed share income of husband in assessee's hands as income of assessee is higher than that of her husband (Explanation 1 to section 64). husband of assessee has paid life insurance premium. deduction under section 80C of Act has, however, not been allowed by ITO. 2. On appeal, it was claimed that as income of husband had been included in assessee's hands under section 64, insurance premium on husband's life paid by him should also have been allowed as deduction. AAC, following decision of Kerala High Court in P.K. Yeshodamma v. CIT [1973] 87 ITR 54, held that rebate or deduction is admissible only in respect of amount of premium paid by assessee. As premium has been paid by assessee's husband, no deduction is admissible. assessee is in appeal. argument advanced on behalf of assessee by her learned counsel is that when income of one person is included in income of another person, deduction available to first person, if assessment is made in his own hands, should also be made available to second person in whose hands such income is included. learned departmental representative, on other hand, submitted that section 64 does not provide for inclusion of total income but income arising to spouse from partnership firm, assets transferred, etc. Therefore, only that income which is computed under particular head after allowing deductions available under that section, is to be considered for inclusion under section 64. Further, deductions specified under Chapter VIA of Act are not to be allowed. In this case if husband had any income, other than that includible in hands of wife under section 64, deduction would be permissible to him out of such income. deduction is available to individual and it is not relatable to any particular source. Therefore, if husband had property income, he could claim appropriate deductions under section 80C when property income is not includible in hands of spouse under section 64. distinction between total income and income being quite clear, assessee, he argued, was not entitled to deduction under section 80C out of life insurance premium paid by husband. 3. We have given careful thought to arguments advanced by both sides. As rightly stressed by learned departmental representative, income specified in section 64 is to be included in hands of spouse or transferor, as case may be. It does not refer to total income. first stage would be to determine income arising to spouse under section 64. Naturally, while determining this income, all permissible deductions, namely, expenditure incurred in earning that income under particular head, will be allowed. net result is then taken over and included under section 64 in hands of spouse. deduction under section 80C will come after this, for, section 80C deduction is not expenditure relating to earning of income. It is special deduction given to assessees and has no relation to source from which income is earned. Since total income of husband is not being included in hands of wife but only income under section 64, deduction under section 80C will not be available to wife in this case unless she herself pays life insurance premium. 4. Our attention was also drawn to distortion introduced by Explanation 1 to section 64. In present case, if income of husband had been more than that of wife, then wife's income would have been included in hands of husband and relief under section 80C would have been available to husband. It might so happen that income might vary from year to year and like pendulum inclusion of income under section 64 might swing from husband to wife or vice versa. In that case, relief under section 80C would also vary from year to year. This, it was submitted, was inequitable. We have already noticed that arguments on behalf of assessee h v e proceeded on ground of equity. Equity cannot influence interpretation of section. provisions of various sections being what they are and total income being different from income under section 64 and further application of relief under Chapter VIA coming at stage later to inclusion of income under section 64, we have to hold that relief under section 80C is admissible only to person who has paid life insurance premium and deduction is not influenced by transportation of income from one person to another. It is true that Explanation introduces certain anomalies in matter of granting of deduction under section 80C and variations in the matter of granting of deduction under section 80C and variations in income from year to year might shift deduction under section 80C from one person to another alternatively. But it is for Legislature to remedy this state of affairs. In result, appeal filed by assessee is dismissed. *** SMT. M. ANASUYA DEVI v. SECOND INCOME TAX OFFICER