9911796707
TMI Blog1970 (11) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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, 1922 (hereinafter called "the Act"). The Income-tax Officer, however, held that this expenditure was of a capital nature and, therefore, the reduction was disallowed. The assessee-company took an appeal to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd 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 the assessee-company argued that, apart from causing great inconvenience and expense to the assessee-company, the order was likely to cause great injustice to it, if it was allowed to stand unchallenged and was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndered 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 was admissible deduction under section 10(2)(xv) of the Act. In that case, the assessee had agreed to pay to the firm of chartered accountants a consolidated sum of Rs. 2,000 per year for 12 years for settling each ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 had claimed other law charges also. The order of the Income-tax Officer, "A" Ward, Ludhiana, shows that in the law charges account a sum of Rs. 4,893 had been debited out of which the payment of Rs. 750 to Shri Chawla, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to 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 Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in New Shorrock Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax. The judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported as R. B. Shreeram & Co. (Private) Ltd. v. Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 cooperative society engaged in transport of goods and passengers, complettly renovated the body of a motor vehicle by putting in a new body on an old chassis. The questfon was whether what was done was "repairs to machinery ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
