TMI Blog1987 (5) TMI 19X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agricultural income. The claim was negatived by the assessing authority. In the appeal preferred by the assessee, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the claim. In second appeal, the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal sustained the allowance ordered by the first appellate authority. Aggrieved by the decision of the Appellate Tribunal, the Revenue filed two reference applications under section 60(1) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act praying that the following two questions may be referred to this court for a decision : " (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the expenses incurred for the professional fee for taxation work is an allowable deduction under section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that this is not an expenditure laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the Purpose of deriving agricultural income. On the other hand, counsel for the assessee contended that the crucial words in section 5(j) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act are similar to section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the legal expenses incurred for taxation work are an admissible expenditure. It was argued that the legal expenses incurred for representation before the Investigation Commission were held to be a permissible expenditure under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, by the Supreme Court in Birla Cotton Spinning Weaving Mills Ltd.'s case [1971] 82 ITR 166 and so in view of the said decision, the legal ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll be a permissible expenditure. In the light of the decision in Malayalam Plantations' case [1978] 115 ITR 624 (Ker) and the decision in Birla Cotton Spinning Weaving Mills' case [1971] 82 ITR 166 (SC), we have to hold that any expenditure incurred in connection with the receipt of agricultural income is a deductible expenditure. The decision in Malayalam Plantations' case [1978] 115 ITR 624 (Ker) was followed in ITRs Nos. 63, 64 and 65 of 1978-CIT (Agrl) v. Emerald Valley Estates Limited [1988] 169 ITR 392 and also in ITRs Nos. 109 and 125 of 1977-CIT (Agrl.) v. S. Bhaskaran [1988] 169 ITR 395 and in ITR No. 107 of 1977-CIT (Agrl.) v. Malabar Industries Company Ltd. [1988] 169 ITR 390 and in ITR No. 50 of 1977-CIT (Agrl.) v. Kartikola ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 169 ITR 390 and in ITR No. 50 of 1977-CIT (Agrl.) v. Kartikolam and Alathur Estates Limited [1988] 169 ITR 393 it is too late in the day to contend that the legal expenses incurred and classified as professional fee for taxation work is not an admissible expenditure in computing the agricultural income under section 5(j) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act. We are of the view that the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the legal expenses incurred for taxation work is an admissible expenditure. The Division Bench decision of this court in Malayalam Plantations' case [1978] 115 ITR 624 (Ker) was followed in the later unreported decisions mentioned above. In the light of the above reasoning, we hold that no referable ques ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
