COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WEST BENGAL Vs. ROYAL CALCUTTA TURF CLUB
LAWS(SC)-1960-11-4
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: CALCUTTA)
Decided on November 28,1960

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,WEST BENGAL Appellant
VERSUS
ROYAL CALCUTTA TURF CLUB Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(DLH)-1973-8-15] [REFERRED]
JASWANT SUGAR MILLS LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(ALL)-1969-12-7] [REFERRED TO]
MOTOR SALES LUCKNOW VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(ALL)-1971-10-16] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. BAZPUR CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR FACTORY LTD [LAWS(ALL)-1982-5-85] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. ANDERSON WRIGHT LTD [LAWS(CAL)-1962-3-23] [REFERRED TO]
LIQUIDATORS BEGG DUNLOP AND CO LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(CAL)-1962-4-2] [REFERRED TO]
ANDREW YULE AND CO LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(CAL)-1962-5-1] [REFERRED TO]
ASIAN TOOL AND PLASTIC CO VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(CAL)-1963-4-6] [RELIED ON]
RAJASTHAN INVESTMENT LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL [LAWS(CAL)-1965-2-15] [REFERRED TO]
C I T CALCUTTA VS. TURNER MORRISON AND CO PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(CAL)-1967-8-13] [REFERRED TO]
SUDHIR CHATTERJEE AND CO P LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(CAL)-1973-11-15] [REFERRED TO]
BINODIRAM BALCHAND VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(MPH)-1962-10-9] [REFERRED TO]
HIRJI AND CO PRIVATE LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(CAL)-1978-3-53] [REFERRED TO]
BIRLA JUTE MANUFACTURING CO LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(CAL)-1980-8-9] [REFERRED TO]
K A RAMACHAR VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MAD RAS [LAWS(SC)-1961-1-5] [REFERRED]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KERALA VS. MALAYALAM PLANTATION LTD [LAWS(SC)-1964-4-22] [REFERRED]
LAKSHMIJI SUGAR MILLS GO VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NEW DELHI [LAWS(SC)-1971-8-39] [REFERRED TO]
MEATTLES LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(DLH)-1967-7-14] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. HARJIVANDAS VITHALDAS [LAWS(GJH)-1965-10-17] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. CENTRAL INDIA MACHINERY MANUFACTURING CO LTD [LAWS(MPH)-1983-8-2] [REFERRED TO]
WATERFALL ESTATES LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NO 2 [LAWS(MAD)-1980-1-34] [REFERRED TO]
PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX [LAWS(KER)-1992-11-17] [REFERRED TO]
ATLAS CYCLE INDUSTRIES LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [LAWS(P&H)-1980-3-1] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. RAJASTHAN SPG AND WVG MILLS LTD [LAWS(RAJ)-2003-11-30] [REFERRED TO]
COCA COLA INDIA PVT. LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(BOM)-2009-8-231] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. DISCOVERY COMMUNICATION INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2014-11-293] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2012-9-521] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Kapur, J. - (1.)This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta in a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under S. 66(1) of the Income-tax Act. The following question was referred:
"Whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that Rs. 61,818 spend by the assessee to train Indian boys as jockeys, did not constitute expenses of the business of the assessee allowable under S. 10(2)(xv) -
which was answered in favour of the respondent. The Commissioner is the appellant before us and the assessee is the respondent.
(2.)The respondent is an association of persons whose business is to hold race meetings in Calcutta on a commercial basis. It holds two series of race meetings during the two seasons of the year. The respondent does not own any horses and therefore does not employ jockeys but they are employed by owners and trainers of horses which are run in the races. It is a matter of some importance to the respondent that there should be jockeys available to the owners with sufficient skill and experience because the success of races to a considerable extent depends upon the experience and skill of a jockey who rides a horse in a race. Because it was of the opinion that there was a risk of the jockeys becoming unavailable and that such unavailability would seriously affect its business which might result in its closing down the business, the respondent considered it expedient to remedy that defect. Therefore, in 1948, it established a school for the training of Indian boys as jockeys so that after their training they might be available for purposes of race meetings held under its auspices. The school, however, did not prove a success and after having been in existence for three years it was closed down.
(3.)During the year ending March 31, 1949, the respondent spent a sum of Rs. 62,818 on the running of its school and claimed that amount as a deduction under S. 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act and also in the assessment under the Business Profits Tax for the chargeable accounting period ending March 31, 1949. This claim was disallowed by the Income Tax Officer and on appeal by the Income Tax Officer and on appeal by Appellate Assistant Commissioner and also by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. At the instance of the respondent the question already quoted was referred to the High Court and was answered in favour of the respondent. This appeal is brought by special leave against that judgment.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.