JANSATTA KARYALAYA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question arising in this reference is whether the amount of Rs. 21 741 incurred in the purchase of types for the printing machine in the first year of its business by the assessee firm is revenue expenditure allowable as a deduction under section 10(2)(xv) of the IncomeTax Act 1922 Under clause (xv) of section 10(2) what is allowed as a deduction is any expenditure not being an allowance of the nature described in any of the clauses (i) to (xiv) inclusive and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of such business profession or vocation.

(2.) The assessee firm is a registered firm carrying on business of publishing a daily newspaper in Gujarat called Jansatta. The business was commenced from November 4 1953 but in the very first year of its business there was a change in the personnel on August 26 1954 and therefore the accounts for that year i. e. Samvat Year 2010 (November 4 1953 to October 26 1954 were split up into two parts one from November 4 1953 to August 25 1954 and the other from August 26 1954 to October 26 1954 The assessee firm laid out Rs. 22 799 in Samvat Year 2010 and certain other amounts during the following years i. e. Samvat Year 2011 and calendar years 1956 and 1957 on the purchase of types for the purpose of its business and during the assessment years 1955 to 1958-1959 claimed these amounts as allowable expenditure. We are concerned in this reference only with the amount of Rs. 22 799 spent on the purchase of types during the first year i. e. Samvat Year 2010 The authorities allowed however Rs. 1058/out of the said amount so that the controversy in this reference is in regard to the balance of Rs. 21 741 only.

(3.) The Income Tax Officer negatived the contention urged by the assessee firm on the ground that these types formed part and parcel of the printing machinery and that as the expenditure was incurred in the first year of the business the purchase of these types would be initial or capital expenditure. On appeal the Assistant Appellate Commissioner disagreed with the view taken by the Income Tax Officer that these types formed part and parcel of the printing machinery and observed-