TMI Blog1970 (11) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 56. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1957-58, and the relevant previous year corresponding thereto ended on September 30, 1956. During that year, the assessee-company filed a writ petition in this court challenging the transfer of its income-tax case from the Income-tax Officer, Ludhiana, to the Income-tax Officer, Ambala, and engaged Shri Bhagat Singh Chawla, advocate, as its counsel. The fee of Rs. 750 paid to Shri Chawla was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer. During the same year, the assessee-company incurred an expenditure of Rs. 35,895 on the replacement of petrol engines of its buses by diesel engines and claimed deduction of that amount as revenue expenditure under section 10(2)(v) of the Indian Income-tax Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted that it filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer, Ambala, on various grounds and for that writ petition it engaged Shri Bhagat Singh Chawla, advocate, and paid him Rs. 750 by way of his fee. The main ground of attack to the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer, Ambala, was that the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax transferring the jurisdiction of the assessee's case from the Income-tax Officer, Ludhiana, to the Income-tax Officer, Ambala, was discriminatory in nature, that the said order was passed without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing, and that the purpose behind it was to make the assessment order against the assessee-company on huge incomes. The counsel for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the point of view of outsiders including the taxing authorities." The question in that case was whether the sums paid by the assessee by way of professional fees to the income-tax adviser for his services rendered during and for the conduct of assessment proceedings before the income-tax authorities were deductible under section 10(2)(xv) of the Act in computing the assessable income of the assessee and it was held that the amount paid by way of professional fees was permissible deduction under section 10(2)(xv) of the Act. This matter was considered by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Calcutta Landing Shipping Co. Ltd., and it was held that the amount paid to the income-tax consultant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... activities but may be justifiably necessary for increasing the assessee's net profits or for the carrying on of the business with larger funds at the disposal of the assessee. From this point of view these expenses are expenses 'for the purpose of the business' in the wider sense the Supreme Court has understood this expression." We respectfully agree with the view expressed in the above judgment and hold that the sum of Rs. 750 paid by the assessee-company to Shri Chawla, advocate, was an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business and was allowable deduction under section 10(2)(xv) of the Act. While coming to this conclusion, we also notice that in respect of the civil writ petition the assessee-company h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The replacement of worn-out parts of a machinery does not by itself bring a new asset into existence. The fact that an old part of a machine was replaced by a new part did not mean that a new asset has been brought into existence. In relation to the bus concerned, the replacement of its engine was only a current repair of that bus; there was no justification for understanding the expression "current repairs" as being equivalent to petty repairs, and the expenditure claimed was allowable as current repairs under section 10(2)(v). While coming to that conclusion the learned judges relied on a Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax and Excess Profits Tax v. Sri Rama Sugar Mills Ltd. and the judgment of a Divisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t on that decision. The judgment of the Mysore High Court was not brought to their notice. A Division Bench of this court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sheikhupura Transport Co. Ltd. held that an expenditure of Rs. 14,700 incurred by the assessee, a transport company, in fitting new bodies in place of worn-out ones to five of its lorries fell within the definition of "current repairs" and was allowable as deduction under section 10(2)(v) of the Act. The learned judges relied on Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sri Rama Sugar Mills Ltd. Recently, a Division Bench of the Madras High Court considered this matter in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Coimbatore Motor Transport Co-operative Society for Ex-servicemen . In that case, the assessee, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
