Deductibility of sister concern charges and gratuity provisions depends on bona fide commercial purpose and properly ascertained liability.

Bona fide extra printing charges paid to a sister concern were treated as deductible business expenditure because the payment was actually made, commercially justified, and not shown to be a diversion of profits, even though no written agreement existed. A provision for gratuity, including liability for non-working journalists, was also treated as deductible where it represented an ascertained accrued liability valued on a legal or scientific basis and was not barred by a specific statutory prohibition. The governing principle was that commercially or actuarially determined liabilities may be deducted in computing true business profits if they are properly established and within the statutory scheme.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether extra printing charges paid to a sister concern were deductible as business expenditure under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (ii) Whether provision for gratuity payable to employees, including non-working journalists, was allowable as a deduction on a legal or scientific basis.

Issue (i): Whether extra printing charges paid to a sister concern were deductible as business expenditure under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The payment was actually made and contemporaneously recorded. The higher charge was linked to a costlier printing process and was found to have been made bona fide on commercial considerations. The absence of a written agreement did not by itself defeat the claim, and the revenue's objections of siphoning of profit or diversion for an extraneous purpose were not supported by material.

Conclusion: The expenditure was allowable, and the answer to the first question was in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether provision for gratuity payable to employees, including non-working journalists, was allowable as a deduction on a legal or scientific basis.

Analysis: For the relevant assessment year, deduction for gratuity was governed by the existing provisions allowing actual contribution to an approved gratuity fund and prohibiting certain gratuity provisions, but the case concerned a present liability estimated on a scientific basis for future discharge. The Court treated such an ascertainable accrued liability, where properly valued on commercial principles, as part of the true profits of the year. It relied on the principle that liabilities reasonably capable of valuation may be deducted in computing business profits, and distinguished cases governed by a specific statutory prohibition where the claim did not fit within the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The provision for gratuity was allowable in principle subject to being based on a legal or scientific basis, and the answer to the second question was in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Both referred questions were answered in favour of the assessee, and the revenue's challenge to the deductions failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A bona fide business expenditure or a properly ascertained accrued gratuity liability, if supported by commercial or actuarial valuation and not barred by a specific statutory prohibition, is deductible in computing business income.

---