HANUMAN MOTOR SERVICE Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order is in continuation of the order made by this court in I. T. R. C. No. 1 of 1961. There was no need to number this proceeding separately.

(2.) IN I. T. R. C. No. 1 of 1961 a Bench of this court, to which one of us (Hegde J.) was a member, made the following order on June 21, 1962 :

(3.) IN considering a claim for deduction under section 10(2)(v), we do not think that the question whether the expenditure is a capital expenditure or revenue expenditure is relevant. Section 10(2)(v) nowhere says that expenditure of a capital nature cannot be brought within the scope of that provision. On the other hand, a reading of clause (xv) of section 10(2) makes it abundantly clear that the deductions claimed under clauses (i) to (xiv) of section 10(2) may be either a revenue expenditure or capital expenditure. Otherwise, there was no purpose in the legislature saying in clause (xv) that :