JUDGMENT Malik, CJ. - Two questions have been referred to us u/s 66(1) of the Indian income tax Act for answer. 2. Whether on the terms of the deed of agreement dated 19th September 1940 (Appendix A) and in the circumstances of the case, the transaction entered into by the Assessee was a money Lending transaction entered in the course of his money-lending business? 3. Whether the sum of Rs. 19,123/ - on account of expenses incurred by the Assessee in financing the litigation in pursuance of the aforesaid agreement is a permissible deduction u/s 10(2)(xv) of the income tax Act? The facts that appear from the statement of the case are as follows: 4. One Mohammad Azim Khan was a claimant to the Nanpara and the Atraula taluqas. His suit had been dismissed in the original side of the Oudh Chief Court and, instead, of tiling an appeal u/s 12(2) of Oudh Courts Act he applied for leave to appeal to the Privy Council. The application having failed he filed an application for special leave which was granted, subject to any objection that might be taken at the time of the hearing that no appeal had been filed before a Division Bench u/s 12(2) of the Oudh Courts Act. The Privy Council ultimately cancelled the leave granted. Mohammad Azim Khan thereupon applied for leave to appeal u/s 12(2) of the Ouch Courts Act and filed applications under Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act for condonation of the delay. He needed money for this purpose and on 19th September, 1940, he sold to Anand Behari Lai and three others a half share in the taluqas, which were the subject matter of dispute, for a sum of Rs. 50,000/ -, out of which Rs. 1,000/ - was utilised in purchasing the necessary stamp for the sale-deed and for registration expenses and the balance was left with Anand Behari Lal for the prosecution of the case. Under the sale-deed the vendees became owners of a half share in the property for a sum of Rs. 50,000/ - which, however, instead of being handed over to the vendor was kept with the vendee for the purpose of meeting the expenses of the litigation. On the same day an agreement was entered into which limited the liability of Anand Behari Lal. 50,000/ - which, however, instead of being handed over to the vendor was kept with the vendee for the purpose of meeting the expenses of the litigation. On the same day an agreement was entered into which limited the liability of Anand Behari Lal. In this agreement it was provided that if the Chief Court dismissed the application for leave on the ground of limitation then Anand Behari Lai will not be liable to pay anything more or meet any further expenses of litigation and he would in that case become the owner of a two annas share in the property instead of eight annas. 5. Anand Behari Lal is a moneyleader and he claimed that the sum of Rs. 19,123/ - that he had paid for the prosecution of the applications u/s 12(2) of the Oudh Court Act and Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act should be deemed to be business expenses and was a permissible deduction u/s 10(2)(XV) of the Indian income tax Act. 6. The Appellate Tribunal held against the Assessee and he thereupon applied that the two questions already quoted by us should be referred for our decision. 7. We have looked into the sale-deed and the agreement of 19th September, 1940 and there can be no doubt that Anand Behari Lal had purchased a share in the property for Rs. 50,000/ - which by the later agreement of the same date became a purchase of a two annas share of the property for Rs. 19,123/ - already advanced by him. In a loan transaction the idea always is that the debtor will repay the loan to the creditor. Here Anand Behari Lal chose to enter into a different kind of transaction. He chose to purchase the property in presenti with all such defects of title as there might be in it for a consideration which was to be utilised in financing the litigation. There was no question of getting a return of his money or getting anything back from the vendor. In the circumstances we fail to see how it can be said to be a loan transaction at all and how the sum of Rs. 19,123/ - can be deemed to be a business expense. It is true that Anand Behari Lal purchased a defective title and the sale transaction was entered into as a speculation. In the circumstances we fail to see how it can be said to be a loan transaction at all and how the sum of Rs. 19,123/ - can be deemed to be a business expense. It is true that Anand Behari Lal purchased a defective title and the sale transaction was entered into as a speculation. He was to utilise the sale price towards meeting the expenses of the litigation and if he succeeded he would get a half share in a valuable property if he failed he would lose his money, but this would not change the nature of the transaction nor would it be said that the money spent by him was anything else but a part of the sale price. In the circumstances our answer to both the questions must be in the negative and we decide accordingly. 8. The opposite party is entitled to its cost which we assess at Rs. 400/ -.