Ordinary Business Expenditure: audit and meeting-related fees deductible, while litigation and administrator costs are not deductible.

Audit fees and fees paid to a court-appointed commissioner for conducting general meetings and overseeing director elections were characterised as ordinary business expenditure and held allowable under the tax provision and general commercial expediency principles; these expenses were connected to activities the company could have undertaken in the ordinary course. By contrast, remuneration of the interim administrator and legal fees paid to resist the section 153C application were treated as arising from litigation and internal management disputes, not laid out wholly and exclusively for carrying on the trade, and accordingly not allowable. The decision distinguishes litigation-expense exceptions where a corporate survival threat exists.

---

---

Issues: Whether, for the assessment years 1954-55 and 1955-56, amounts paid to auditors, an advocate, a court-appointed commissioner and an interim administrator in connection with proceedings under section 153C of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 are deductible as business expenditure under section 10(2) of the Income-tax Act or on general principles of commercial expediency.

Analysis: The court examined the nature and purpose of each item of expenditure incurred in the course of the section 153C proceedings. It noted that the court-directed audit was of a kind the company could have undertaken in the ordinary course and that fees paid to the commissioner for conducting general body meetings and overseeing election of directors were connected to meetings vital to the carrying on of the company's business. Those items were held to fall within the scope of allowance under section 10(2)(xv) or on general commercial principles as ordinary business expenditure. By contrast, remuneration paid to the interim administrator and legal fees paid to the advocate engaged by the company to resist the section 153C application were found to arise from litigation and internal disputes over management; they were not expenditures laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of carrying on the trade and were not allowable. The court distinguished the Morgan (Tate & Lyle) principle on the facts, holding that the section 153C application did not realistically threaten the company's continued existence and therefore did not convert litigation expenses for resisting the application into deductible expenditures.

Conclusion: The question is answered partly in favour of the assessee: audit fees and commissioner remuneration for conducting general meetings are allowable as business expenditure; remuneration of the interim administrator and the advocate engaged to resist the section 153C proceedings are not allowable.

---