Dr. B.P. Saraf, J.

1. By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this court for opinion at the instance of the assessee :

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the contribution to the education fund under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, is not allowable as business expenditure "

2. This reference pertains to the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80. The assessee is a co-operative society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. It is engaged in the manufacture and sale of sugar. Under section 68 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, it was required to make a contribution to the education fund of the State federal society at the prescribed rates. The assessee-society paid a sum of Rs. 50,000 in each of the two previous years relevant to the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80. The assessee claimed deduction of the above amount in its assessments under the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act"), for the two assessment years as an allowable expenditure. The Income Tax Officer allowed the deduction. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax initiated proceedings under section 263 of the Act for suo motu revision of the above order of the Income Tax Officer as, in his opinion, the decision of the Income Tax Officer to allow the deduction of the amounts contributed by the assessee to the education fund was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and after hearing the assessee reversed the order of the Income Tax Officer and directed him to recompute the income by disallowing the claim of the assessee for deduction of the amount of contribution paid in the two assessment years to the education fund of the State federal society.

3. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax, the assessee appealed to the Tribunal. The Tribunal, following a decision of its Special Bench in Shri Panzara-kan-Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v. ITO, dismissed the appeals of the assessee. Hence, this reference, at the instance of the assessee.

4. We have heard Mr. S. N. Inamdar, learned counsel for the assessee. We have also heard Mr. K. B. Bhujle, learned counsel for the assessee in Income Tax Reference No. 63 of 1986, wherein also an identical question is involved. The contention of learned counsel is that the contribution made by the assessee to the education fund of the State federal society is an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business of the assessee which falls under section 37 of the Act. According to learned counsel, the contribution to the education fund under section 68 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act is directly connected to the carrying on of the assessees business. It was further contended that the contribution to the education fund being a statutory obligation of the assessee under the Co-operative Societies Act, it was an allowable deduction under section 37(1) of the Act. Reliance was placed in support of this contention on the latest decision of the Supreme Court in Sri Venkata Satyanarayana Rice Mill Contractors Co. v. CIT : [1997]223ITR101(SC) . Reliance was also placed on a decision of the Gujarat High Court in Mehsana District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. v. CIT : [1993]203ITR601(Guj) , where contribution made by the co-operative society to the education fund under the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, was held to be an allowable deduction under section 37 of the Act.

5. Dr. V. Balasubramanian, learned counsel for the Revenue, on the other hand, submitted that the contribution made by the assessee to the education fund was not an allowable deduction under section 37 of the Act inasmuch as the payment was not wholly and exclusively for the benefit of the assessee-society. It was contended that there was no relation between the contribution made by the assessee-society and any advantage gained by it as a result thereof. It was further contended that even if any advantage was obtained by the assessee from the education fund, it was too meagre to establish even a casual relationship between the contribution and the benefit. It was pointed out that there was no provision in the Co-operative Societies Act which required deduction of the amount of contribution made by the assessee in arriving at its net income. It was also contended that the payment was made only because the assessee was a manufacturer of sugar and a co-operative society.

6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. We have also perused the decision of the Special Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune, dated April 29, 1983, in Shri Panzara-Kan Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v. ITO which has been followed by the Tribunal in this case. Section 37 of the Act provides for deduction of any expenditure laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession". The only exception is capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee or expenditure of the nature described in other sections of Chapter TV of the Act. There is no dispute in this case about the fact that the expenditure incurred by the assessee by way of contribution to the education fund is not a capital expenditure or expenditure in the nature of personal expenses, or expenditure described in any of the sections in Chapter IV of the Act. The only controversy is whether the contribution to the education fund is an expenditure laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business of the assessee. So far as the scope and ambit of the expression "for the purposes of the business" is concerned, it is well-settled by the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. : [1964]53ITR140(SC) , that the expression "for the purpose of the business" is wider in scope than the expression "for the purpose of earning profits". Its range is wide : it may take in not only the day to day running of a business but also the rationalisation of its administration and modernisation of its machinery; it may include measures for the preservation of the business and for the protection of its assets and property from expropriation, coercive process or assertion of hostile title; it may also comprehend payment of statutory dues and taxes imposed as a pre-condition to commence or for the carrying on of a business; it may comprehend many other acts incidental to the carrying on of a business. The only limitations that the purpose should be for the purpose of the business, that is to say, the expenditure incurred should be for the carrying on of business and the assessee should incur it in his capacity as a person carrying on the business. It cannot include sums spent for purpose unconnected with the business, Therefore, the question that requires consideration in this case is whether the contribution to the education fund under section 68 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act is an expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business of the assessee.

7. Section 68 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, as it stood at the material time, reads as follows :

"68. Contribution to education fund of the State federal society. - (1) Every society shall contribute annually towards the education fund of the State federal society which may be notified in this behalf by the State Government at such rate as may be prescribed, and different rates may be prescribed for different societies or classes of societies depending on their financial condition.

(2) Every society shall pay its contributions to the said fund within two months from the date on which its accounts are adopted by the general body of members, Any officer wilfully failing to comply with the requirement of this section, shall be personally liable for making good the amount to the federal society notified as aforesaid."

8. The rates at which the contribution is to be made have been prescribed under rule 53 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961. Under the said rule, different rates of contribution have been prescribed for different classes of societies. The rate of contribution applicable to co-operative sugar factories at the material time was 25 paise per ton of sugarcane crushed subject to a maximum of Rs. 50,000 per year. Thus, a co-operative society was obliged under section 68 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act to contribute to the education fund of the State federal society at the rate of 25 paise per ton of sugarcane crushed, the maximum contribution being Rs. 50,000 per year. In the instant case, the assessee paid the maximum contribution in both the years.

9. It is clear from the provisions of section 68 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act read with rule 53 of the rules that it is a statutory obligation of the co-operative society to contribute to the education fund at the rates prescribed in rule 53. In the instant case, the assessee was liable to pay to the education fund at the rate of 25 paise per ton of sugarcane crushed per year, subject, however, to the maximum of Rs. 50,000. This contribution, the assessee had to pay because it was carrying on the business of running the sugar factory and was engaged in crushing sugarcane. If no sugarcane was crushed, no contribution was required to be paid to the education fund. That being so, it is clear that the contribution made by the assessee to the State federal society under section 68 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act read with rule 53 of the rules was an expenditure directly connected or related to the carrying on of the assessees business.

10. As stated above, the law is well-settled that for the purpose of Income Tax, any contribution made or expenditure incurred by the assessee which is directly connected or related to the carrying on of the assessees business or which results in a benefit to the assessees business has to be regarded as allowable deduction under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the instant case, it is difficult to say that the contribution made by the assessee was not directly connected or related to the carrying on of the business of the assessee. In fact, it was a statutory obligation of the assessee to contribute the amounts in question to the education fund of the State federal society, It is, therefore, an allowable deduction under section 37(1) of the Act.

11. Reference may be made in this connection to the decision of the Supreme Court in Sri Venkata Satyanarayana Rice Mill Contractors Co. v. CIT : [1997]223ITR101(SC) . In that case, the controversy was whether the contribution made by the assessee to the public welfare fund for getting permits from Andhra Pradesh for export of rice constituted business expenditure within the meaning of section 37 of the Act. The District Welfare Fund had been established pursuant to a scheme which had been evolved by the rice mills association in consultation with the District Collector. According to the said scheme, each member of the association was to deposit an amount of 50 paise per quintal of rice if he proposed to export the same from Andhra Pradesh. The deposit was to be made in the Andhra Bank. The application for the export permit was in a form wherein the applicant had to state the amount of contribution deposited by him and the particulars of the bank, the challan number and the date. The assessee claimed the amount of contribution made by it to the District Welfare Fund as an allowable deduction under section 37 of the Act. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the contribution made by the assessee in pursuance of the above scheme was allowable under section 37(1) of the Act. While arriving at the above conclusion, the Tribunal observed that though there was no compulsion on the appellant to make a contribution to the welfare fund, still the contributions made in pursuance of the scheme which was evolved by the Rice Millers Association in consultation with the District Collector would show that an advantage would ensue on the payment of the contribution and, therefore, the deduction was allowable under section 37(1) of the Act, The Tribunal also repelled the contention of the Revenue that such contributions were opposed to public policy. However, on a reference at the instance of the Revenue, the High Court held that the payment to the welfare fund was opposed to public policy and hence no deduction was allowable under section 37(1) of the Act. On appeal by the assessee, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the High Court and held that any contribution made by the assessee to a public welfare fund which is directly connected or related to the carrying on of the business or which results in benefit to the assessees business has to be regarded as an allowable deduction under section 37(1) of the Act. It was further held that such a donation, whether voluntary or at the instance of the authorities concerned, when made to a Chief Ministers Drought Relief Fund or a District Welfare Fund established by the District Collector or any other fund for the benefit of the public and with a view to secure a benefit to the assessees business, cannot be regarded as payment opposed to public policy. It was pointed out that the payment made by the assessee to the District Welfare Fund was not made as an illegal gratification. The legal position was summed up by the Supreme Court as follows (page 111) :

".... any contribution made by an assessee to a public welfare fund which is directly connected or related to the carrying on of the assessees business or which results in benefit to the assessees business has to be regarded as an allowable deduction under section 37(1) of the Act. Such a donation, whether voluntary or at the instance of the authorities concerned, when made to a Chief Ministers Drought Relief Fund or a District Welfare Fund established by the District Collector or any other fund for the benefit of the public and with a view to secure benefit to the assessees business, cannot be regarded as payment opposed to public policy. It is not as if the payment in the present case had been made as an illegal gratification. There is no law which prohibits the making of such a donation. The mere fact that making of a donation for a charitable or public cause or in public interest results in the Government giving patronage or benefit can be no ground to deny the assessee a deduction of that amount under section 37(1) of the Act when such payment had been made for the purpose of the assessees business."

12. Reference may also be made in this connection to a decision of the Gujarat High Court in Mehsana District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. v. CIT : [1993]203ITR601(Guj) . In that case also, the controversy was regarding the allowability of deduction under section 37 of the Act of the amount paid by the assessee to the education fund under the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. Nanavati J. (as his Lordship then was), on perusal of the scheme of the Act, held that the contribution made by the assessee to the education fund was an allowable deduction under section 37 of the Act.

13. In the instant case, the claim of assessee for deduction is on a still stronger footing. The contribution made by the assessee to the education fund of the State federal society was not voluntary. It was a statutory obligation of the assessee under section 68 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and the making of the contribution was directly connected or related to the carrying on of the assessees business. Such an expenditure squarely falls within the scope and ambit of section 37 of the Act and the same is an allowable deduction. That being so, the Tribunal was not correct in holding that the contribution made by the assessee under section 68 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act to the education fund of the State federal society was not allowable as business expenditure.

14. In view of the above, the question referred to us is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. Reference is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.