1960 (9) TMI 102

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uction under section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act, in computing his assessable income in the assessment year 1954-55. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim in its entirely. He held that the expenditure was of a capital nature, incurred by the assessee to secure to himself a benefit of an enduring nature. The Assistant Commissioner differed and found that no portion of the expenditure was of a capital nature. He, however, held that only onehalf of the expenditure satisfied the test having been wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of the assessee's profession. The other half was treated as the personal expenses of the assessee while abroad. The Assistant Commissioner allowed a deduction of ₹ 9,769. The Department....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1) of the Act: "Whether the outlay of ₹ 9,769 on the foreign tour of the assessee is capital in nature, not allowable as a deduction under section 10(2)(xv)?" The scope of the question is limited to the issue whether the expenditure was a capital nature. The amount involved is not in issue. It is ₹ 9,769, the amount estimated by the Assistant Commissioner. That the expenditure of that amount satisfied the other test of section 10(2)(xv) and that it was expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the assessee's profession as a surgeon, is not in issue either. We do not propose to embark upon the task eminent Judges in England and India have declined consistently to undertake. We shall not attempt to evolv....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ure was not incurred to initiate any new business or profession, nor even to enlarge the scope or character of the profession that the assessee was already practicing. He was and continued to be a surgeon, one of the leading surgeons of Madurai. The expenditure was not incurred to obtain any additional qualifications. to practice his profession. The Department could claim at best, in the circumstances of this case, that the assessee incurred the expenditure to maintain his efficiency in his profession. As in the Australian case noted in paragraph 1278 at page 440, in Gunn's Commonwealth Income Tax Law and Practice, fourth edition, it would be much less correct to say that the assessee gained an enduring benefit by his study-tour broad t....