Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, to be hereinafter referred to as the "Act". The question of law referred to by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, to this court for its opinion is : "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the sum of Rs. 10,483.00 is an allowable expenditure under section 10 (2) (xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.

[The learned judge set out the statement of case which ran as follows :]

2. The assessee is an astrologer by profession. He carries on business in the printing and publishing of books on astrology. He also runs an astrological magazine. In March, 1959, he was elected as the Second Vice President of the International Congress of Astro-Scientists. A session of the Congress was held in New York between 2nd and 10th October, 1959. The conference director wrote to the assessee :

"Your attendance at New York this coming October 2nd to 10th - at the World Congress of Astro-Scientists - is very important first as our executive 2nd Vice President and further as top ranking representative of India as a Nation with strong interest in co-operative understanding among the peoples of the world."

As vice-president he had to attend this session. On his way to New York, he attended the 6th Congress of Scientific Integration at Italy. While the U. S. he delivered many lectures before the astrological associations and guilds. He also visited United Kingdom where also he gave lectures before such profession associations. The expenses within U. S. and U. K. were wholly or partly borne by the association and guilds. The total expenses incurred by the assessee amounted to Rs. 11,808 as under :

"We consider that the assessee in exercising the profession or vocation of an astrologer and in conducting a magazine devoted to astrology and other allied subjects was also carrying on cultural and educational work. 'Culture' is a word of wide import to take in astrology and other subjects. No doubt the visit to the U. S. A. was necessitated by the fact that he was the executive vice-president of the Congress. But he had been elected as vice-president because he was exercising the profession of astrology and has made eminent contributions in the field. He did not become a vice-president all of a sudden. It was a result of the profession that he had been exercising throughout. During the visit abroad, he had carried on a lecture tour. Whether it was to cover the cost of the tour or not, he had been invited to give lectures because of his profession and his attainment therein. We are therefore unable to hold that these activities of the assessee were not in any way unconnected with his profession or vocation.

18. It is not the case of the assessee that he attended the conference either for the purpose of gaining additional knowledge in astrology or for propagating his knowledge on the subject or even to improve the prospects of the magazine published by him. He primarily went to the U. S. A. for the purpose of attending the congress. After going there, he took advantage of his stay in the U. S. A. and delivered certain lectures on astrology. It may also be that during his stay in the U. S. A. and in other countries, through which he travelled, he took the opportunity to know the advances made by astrology in those countries. But that is not the same thing as saying that his purpose in going to the U. S. A. was for advancing his knowledge on astrology or in connection with the publication of his magazine. What section 10(2) (xv) requires is that the expenditure, the deduction of which is claimed, should have been wholly and exclusively expended for the purpose of business, profession or vocation. The purpose in expending the amount in question must have been to advance the cause of his business, profession or vocation. Incidental advantages gained are not taken note of by section 10(2) (xv). As can be gathered from the case put forward on behalf of the assessee, it is clear that the advantages gained for his business, profession or vocation were secondary, if not accidental. It cannot be said that the expenditure was incurred for the exclusive purpose of advancing the cause of his business, profession or vocation.