TMI Blog1993 (9) TMI 317X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and for the purpose of preparing a return of income under the said Act. It must follow that the professional fee paid to an auditor for the purpose also falls u/s 5(j) - question is answered in negative - - - - - Dated:- 14-9-1993 - B. P. JEEVAN REDDY. and S. P. BHARUCHA. ORDER The High Court of Kerala ([1982] 134 ITR 481) answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the Revenue an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l income". The High Court, basing itself on its earlier judgment in Commr. of Agrl. I. T. v. Nilambur Rubber Co. Ltd. [1969] 71 ITR 686 (Ker), held that only amounts expended in connection with the raising and processing of crops, rendering them in a condition to be taken to the market and transportation charges would legitimately fall within the scope of the said section 5(j). It was brought to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stated that a special leave petition against the Full Bench judgment was pending. We see no reason whatsoever why the principle that applies to the interpretation of section 37 of the Income-tax Act. 1961, should not apply to the said section 5(j). The fact that section 5(j) uses the words "for the purposes of deriving the agricultural income", Pressed by learned counsel for the Revenue, do not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as upheld. We see no real distinction between expenditure incurred for the purpose of maintaining accounts and getting them audited and for the purpose of preparing a return of income under the said Act. It must follow that the professional fee paid to an auditor for the purpose also falls under section 5(j). In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order under appeal are set aside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
