ORDER Per Shri George Cheriyan, Senior Vice President. This appeal by the assessee relates to the assessment year 1982-83. The assessee is a registered firm of which the partners were K. Balajee having a 60% share and B. Suresh having a 40% share. The previous year of the assessee-firm ended on 30-6-1981. 2. The business of the assessee, as stated in the assessment order was "production of feature film and hiring of outdoor equipment". The assessee had claimed investment allowance of Rs. 67,662 in respect of plant and machinery with the dates of purchase are as under :- With reference to the aforesaid data, we have to clarify in respect of the item which appears as duty on Arsi Camera, that in respect of the cost of the camera itself no investment allowance is claimed. This is because, according to the assessee, the camera was received as a gift. The I. T. O., however, had brought the value of the camera to tax under the head business income by invoking the provisions of section 28(iv) of the I. T. Act, 1961 and the value so assessed as income was Rs. 1,73,670. We shall deal with this aspect when we come to the ground of appeal relating to the same. 3. The investment allowance claimed is 25% of the aggregate value of the machinery of Rs. 2,70,646. The claim for the investment allowance was disallowed by the I. T. O. on the ground that the condition of the machinery having been wholly used for the purposes of business carried on by the assessee was not satisfied. According to the I. T. O., the assessee had only lent the equipments on hire to third parties and in such cases investment allowance was not admissible and the ratio of the judgment of the Madras High Court in CWT v. P. T. N. Shenbagamoorthy [1983] 144 ITR 724 supported the stand. 4. The assessee appealed but without success to the C. I. T. (A), who held that the provisions of sec. 32A were not satisfied. 5. In the appeal before us it is submitted that the following the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in ITO v. First Leasing Co. 4. The assessee appealed but without success to the C. I. T. (A), who held that the provisions of sec. 32A were not satisfied. 5. In the appeal before us it is submitted that the following the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in ITO v. First Leasing Co. of India Ltd. [1985] 13 ITD 234 (Mad.), where all the decisions on the point have been considered, the assessee could not be denied the grant of investment allowance because the assessee had let out on hiring the machinery which the assessee owned and had derived income from the same. 6. The learned departmental representative opposed the plea submitting that in the case of First Leasing Co. of India Ltd. (supra), their only business was to derive income by leasing out assets and it was in such circumstances that the Tribunal held that the assets were wholly used for the purposes of business. In the present case, he submitted, the main or principal business of the assessee was production of films. Income from any and every incidental business of the assessee was production of films. Income from any and every incidental business activity could not be considered as the principal business of the assessee. Hence the machinery which was let out in the present case was not let out in carrying on the principal business of the assessee. Therefore, such machinery was not wholly used in the business of the assessee. Hence investment allowance could not be allowed. Therefore, the claim for investment allowance it was submitted was rightly disallowed. 7. We have considered the rival submissions. We have carefully gone through the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of P. T. N. Shenbagmoorthys case (supra). As the citation itself shows, the case arose out of wealth-tax proceedings. Apart from that, we do not find anything in the ratio of the judgment aforesaid which helps the contention of the Revenue. 8. In the present case, according to the assessment order, the business was "production of feature films and hiring out of out-door equipment". The narration treats both businesses on a footing of equal importance. The assessment order itself further does not contain anything to suggest that one was the principal business and the other was only a subsidiary business. 9. In the case of First Leasing Co. The narration treats both businesses on a footing of equal importance. The assessment order itself further does not contain anything to suggest that one was the principal business and the other was only a subsidiary business. 9. In the case of First Leasing Co. of India Ltd. (supra) the Tribunal had observed as under at pages 252 and 253 of 13 I.T.D. :- "The assessee is entitled to the investment allowance in the year of installation of machinery. There is the further opinion of having such allowance otherwise in the year in which the machinery is first put to use. Even if it is argued that the act of letting out of the machinery is not use of the machinery by the assessee, still investment allowance cannot be denied because the assessee is entitled to the grant of such allowance on the basis of installation. It is also not easy to say that machinery, when it is let out, is not used for the purposes of business because it is on this basis depreciation has been allowed under section 32 of the Act. No bar is, therefore, seen to the grant of investment allowance on the ground that any of the requirements of section 32A (1) are not satisfied. Section 32A (2) specifies in the case of new ship or aircraft for getting investment allowance the assessee should be engaged in the operation of ships or aircraft. The further requirement of the nature of the business which the assessee concerned should be carrying on has been specifically incorporated by the Legislature as far as ship or aircraft is concerned. Such a requirement is absent in respect of other machinery or plant and, therefore, on a plain reading of the provision we cannot spell any requirement that the assessee should itself carry on the industrial undertaking where the requisite articles or things are manufactured. We, therefore, consider that there is no requirement of section 32A (2) which would be violated if investment allowance is granted to an assessee which leases out machinery or plant provided the lessee uses such machinery or plant for purposes specified." Looking to the aforesaid observations, we cannot read into the provisions of section 32A any requirement that investment allowance can be allowed only if the principal business of the assessee is leasing. Where the equipment in question was leased out and hiring charges obtained, and the assessee derived income from other businesses also, the assessee is entitled to the deduction of Rs. 67,662 by was of investment allowance. 10. In making the assessment, an amount of Rs. 1,73,670 was brought to tax stating as under :- "As pointed out earlier, the assessee produced a Tamil Movie and shot major portions at Sri Lanka, in collaboration with the Maharaja Organisation Limited, Colombo. During the course of the examination, it is noticed that the assessee has declared that Arriflex III cine camera and accessories were gifted to the assessee abroad by the above Maharaja Organisation Ltd. The assessee has also filed a letter from this party. Extract from this letter dt. 18-12-1980 is given below :- "This gift is being made by this organisation to Suresh Arts in consideration and help given by them in shooting the feature film co-production in Sri Lanka. 90% of the shooting of this film was done in this country in the record time of 37 days and it is in acknowledgement of this co-operation and to continue our good relationships for the future that we make this gesture. It is apparent from the above that the benefit has arisen only on account of the assessees business connection with the above party. Therefore, the value of the benefit will be liable for inclusion as income under the head Business, under the provisions of sec. 28(iv) of the I. T. Act. By this office letter dt. 14-3-1985, the assessee was specifically asked to file objections, if any, for my proposal to assess the value of the benefit u/s 28(iv). Though, the assessee was given time up to 21-3-1985, it has not so far objected to the above proposal. Value of the Camera and accessories as per customs duty order comes to Rs. 1,73,670. This is included under the head Business and assessed.... Rs. 1,73,670." The assessee did not succeed before the C. I. T. (A) who held that the camera was not a gift in the legal sense because there was adequate consideration for the same, since the assessee had co-operated and helped the Ceylonese parties during the course of the shooting of the film, the I. T. O. it was held had rightly taken the value of the camera as the assessees business profit. 11. 11. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to bring on record certain facts which we ascertained at the appellate stage before us. There was an agreement dt. 30-5-1980 entered into between the assessee on the one side and M/s. The Maharaja Organisation Ltd. a company incorporated in Colombo on the other side. To this agreement the assessee is the party of the first part and M/s. The Maharaja Organisation Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred as Maharaja) is the party of the second part. The assessee and Maharaja were to jointly produce a talkie picture in Tamil which would be titled "Amara Deepam". The film eventually was exhibited under the name "Thee", viz., fire. The agreement in question was subject to the approval of both the Governments of India and Sri Lanka. The terms of the agreement were duly examined by the Reverse Bank of India and entered in their registers. Briefly put, the assessee was to provide the story, screen play, and dialogue. Also the assessee was to engage a director, a music director, camera man and editor, as also the story play writer, lyricist and other required artists, assistants, hero, heroine and a few other supporting artists. The film was to be shot at the locations in India and Sri Lanka. The assessee was to bear the expenses for the travel from Sri Lanka and back of the entire unit from India. All songs, background music as well as costumes, jewellery, and make-up materials required for all the artists engaged from India were to be provided by the assessee. As far as Maharaja was concerned, they were to bear the expenses of the assessee including the artists, technicians and all other staff who went over to Sri Lanka in connection with the shooting of the film and the important persons were to be accommodated in approved star class hotels. They were also to provide all raw stock film and all equipment necessary for the shooting of the film in Sri Lanka and they were also to provide an associate director and any other artists and technicians concerned for the shooting of the film. 12. There was no ceiling placed on the prints which were to be taken in Sri Lanka and in India. 12. There was no ceiling placed on the prints which were to be taken in Sri Lanka and in India. The processing of the film was to be done in India and Maharaja was to bear the cost of processing as well as the cost of the black and white rush print. The colour prints were to be given to Maharaja at the cost decided. The assessee had the exhibition rights of the firm anywhere in the world except in Sri Lanka where Maharaja had such rights. They also had the right to dub the film in Sinhalese. 13. In pursuance of the agreement, Maharaja remitted Rs. 1,25,000 in favour of the assessee towards laboratory charges and other expenses in producing the film. The assessee also sold five copies of the film to Maharaja along with black and white stills. Each print was sold at Rs. 18,550 excluding laboratory charges of Rs. 2800 per print. In India the price was about Rs. 16,000 excluding excise duty. 14. On 18-12-80 Maharaja gave a declaration as under :- "TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN "This is to confirm that we are pleased to gift to M/s. Suresh Arts of New Theatre Building, P. O. Box 405, Trivandrum, a new Arriflex 35 III Camera with accessories as per description in Invoice E CO56 of Chemway (U. K.) Ltd., London dated 10-12-1980, except item No. 22 (High Speed Cable), the total value of which is around pounds 8500. The gift is being made by this Organisation to Suresh Arts in consideration of our deep appreciation of the co-operation and help given by them in shooting the feature film co-production in Sri Lanka. 90% of the shooting of this film was done in this country in the record time of 37 days and it is in acknowledgement of this co-operation and to continue out good relationship for the future that we make this gesture. Sd/- (R. Maharaja) Managing Director". What was brought to tax as income of the assessee was the value fixed by the Customs authority of this camera, which came to Rs. 1,73,670. 15. The submission of the learned counsel before us was that an analysis of the agreement referred to would show that mutual services were to be rendered by the assessee and Maharaja. The value of the same was inter se equivalent. 1,73,670. 15. The submission of the learned counsel before us was that an analysis of the agreement referred to would show that mutual services were to be rendered by the assessee and Maharaja. The value of the same was inter se equivalent. Therefore, the question of value of the camera presented being considered as extra remuneration could not arise. It was stressed the assessee finished the shooting in Sri Lanka within a record time of 37 days and, therefore, Maharaja considerably saved expenditure by way of hotel charges etc. for the large number of cine artists and technicians. 90% of the shooting was done in Sri Lanka and if the assessee had not co-operated and finished the shooting within a record time, Maharaja would have had to spend considerable amounts in terms of the agreement. Consequently, the learned counsel submitted if Maharaja sought to make a present purely voluntarily to the assessee the value thereof could never partake of the nature of, or be considered extra remuneration. The assessee had not expected the gift nor solicited in any manner for it. The article given was a gift in the true sense, purely voluntary without any strings attached. Where such a gift was made, it could never be the income of the assessee. 16. In support of the provision canvassed for, the learned counsel relied on the exposition of the law on the point by the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. M. Balamuralikrishna [1988] 171 ITR 447/37 Taxman 286 after referring to earlier decisions relating to the point. He submitted that the Madras High Court had referred to the test laid down by Viscount Cave L.C. in Seymour v. Reed [1927] A.C. 554, as the classical test, viz., "The question to be answered is, as Rowlatt, J. put it, is it in the end a personal gift or is it remuneration ? If the latter, it is subject to the tax if the former, it is not." Learned counsel proceed to amplify that where the purpose was not to encourage further exertions, but to express gratitude for what was already done, then the amount would not partake the character of remuneration. In the present case, it was re-emphasised that there was no obligation -contractual or otherwise - for Maharaja to make the gift. 17. In the present case, it was re-emphasised that there was no obligation -contractual or otherwise - for Maharaja to make the gift. 17. The learned counsel invited attention to the decision in the case of CIT v. Dr. B. M. Sundaravadanam [1984] 148 ITR 333/28 Taxman 254 (Mad.) where a patient was treated by a doctor for which professional charges were fully paid. The patient made a gift two years later of over 33 acres of land stating that it was to show his feeling of gratitude. The court held that the services rendered by the doctor was not the causa causans of making the gift by the donor. The finding was that it should be treated only as a gift made out of personal esteem. 18. Referring to the later decision of the Madras High Court in C. P. Chitrarasu v. CIT [1986] 160 ITR 534/26 Taxman 178, it was stressed that :- "A receipt does not necessarily arise from the exercise of a profession or vocation merely because the profession or vocation affords an opportunity for earning the receipt." Another case (not referred to in the decision of Balamuralikrishna) relied on by the learned counsel was the decision of the Supreme Court in Mahesh Anantrai Pattani v. CIT [1961] 41 ITR 481 where a payment of Rs. five lakhs made by the Maharaja of Bhavnagar to the ex-Dewan was held by majority to be not taxable. Learned counsel sought to distinguish the case of P. Krishna Menon v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 48 (SC) stating that it stood on a different footing, because, on the facts it was found in that case that the payment made to Krishna Menon was in consideration of the teaching imparted by him, and consequently the payments were income arising from the vocation of the assessee. 19. The learned departmental representative submitted that what had to be remembered was that the present was not a case of a gift being made by one individual to another. It was a gift purported to have been made by a limited company to the assessee, a business concern. Therefore, there could be no element of the article having been given out of natural love and affection. It was a gift purported to have been made by a limited company to the assessee, a business concern. Therefore, there could be no element of the article having been given out of natural love and affection. To bring home this point, the learned departmental representative quoting from the judgment of Derbyshire, Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Susil C. Sen, In re [1941] 9 ITR 261 at page 271 submitted that : "commercial men rarely pay money without good reason and generally do so in return for property, goods, services, or help." He stated that in the present case in terms of the declaration by Maharaja of 20th October, 1980 the camera was given admittedly as recompense for considerable amount of expenditure saved by the dedicated work put in and co-operation extended by the assessee. To amplify the submission was that it is certain that such a gift would never have flowed from Maharaja to the assessee, if the assessee had not exerted to finish the film shooting within a record time of 37 days. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Maharaja Shri Govindlalji Ranchhodlalji v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 92 to submit that even where an article was given voluntarily, the value thereof could be taxable as income. Culled from the records of the assessee the learned D. R. placed before us a copy of another declaration from Maharaja dated 23-6-80 which stated :- "TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN The following items have been gifted to Mr. K. Balajee, partner, Suresh Arts of 58, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Madras, on the occasion of his birthday which he is celebrating with us in Sri Lanka today :- 1. JVC Video Camera 2. JVC Recorder 3. AC Pack 4. TUNER With Monitor Mr. Balajee is well known to our Organisation for may years. Sd/- Vasantha Coomaraswamy Deputy Managing Director." He submitted that these articles being gifts on a particular occasion, viz., the birthday of Shri Balaje, one of the partners, the department did not consider the money-value thereof as income. This was apparently because it was considered to be a personal testimony. Balajee is well known to our Organisation for may years. Sd/- Vasantha Coomaraswamy Deputy Managing Director." He submitted that these articles being gifts on a particular occasion, viz., the birthday of Shri Balaje, one of the partners, the department did not consider the money-value thereof as income. This was apparently because it was considered to be a personal testimony. The purported gift on the video camera now under consideration, the learned departmental representative submitted, was not the only article stated to have been gifted in this year and the Revenue was conscious of, and did make a differentiation between the two types of transactions. 20. The learned departmental representative then adverted to the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of David Mitchell v. CIT [1956] 30 ITR 701 and submitted that the payment there was not in pursuance of any agreement or contract but was still held to be taxable as remuneration for services rendered. Other decisions relied on were those of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Amarendra Nath Chakraborty v. CIT [1971] 79 ITR 342 and of the Madras High Court in the case of C. Lakshmi Rajyam v. CIT [1960] 40 ITR 340. 21. The learned departmental representative concluded by placing all emphasis on the plain language of section 28(iv) of the I. T. Act, 1961 which reads as under :- "28. The following income shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head Profits and gains of business or profession, (iv) the value of any benefit or perquisite, whether convertible into money or not, arising from business or the exercise of a profession." He submitted that the camera the assessee had got in the present case free was clearly a benefit arising from business. 22. We have considered the rival submission. In the present case, there was an agreement entered into between the assessee and Maharaja whereby the terms of the contract had been set out. For whatever service the assessee rendered, remuneration was payable in terms of the contract. One of the issue for determination is whether when such remuneration had been fixed and was separately payable, the value of the camera, which was gifted, could be considered to be the income of the assessee. The line, which would exempt the value of such a gift and which would bring the same within the purview of tax net, is very thin. The line, which would exempt the value of such a gift and which would bring the same within the purview of tax net, is very thin. In Dr. B. M. Sundaravadnams case (supra) there was no material to suggest that the assessee concerned would have to take treatment under that Doctor in future. In Balamuralikrishnas case (supra), the amount collected was on the occasion of the assessees 30 years of professional career and it was held that it was not intended to promote his art further since it had to be assumed that the assessee had achieved a statute of his won, which was not necessary to be enhanced any more by the attraction of receiving the amount of Rs. 30,000. The classical test laid down by Viscount case and referred to in the aforesaid judgment by the Madras High Court was : "The question to be answered is whether in the end it was personal gift or was it remuneration." We do not agree with the learned departmental representative that because the camera was given by a company to a firm, it could not partake the nature of a personal gift. The firm consists of partners and, therefore, the gift could well come within the general terminology of a personal gift. The present is a case where Maharaja has given a declaration about the reasons for which the camera was being given to the assessee as a gift. This letter has been reproduced by us in full in paragraph 14. The second paragraph of this declaration would bear repetition :- "The gift is being made by this Organisation to Suresh Arts in consideration of our appreciation of the co-operation and help given by them in shooting the feature film co-production in Sri Lanka. 90% of the shooting of this film was done in this country in the record time of 37 days and it is in acknowledgement of this co-operation and to continue our good relationships for the future that we make this gesture." The camera was given not only as acknowledgement of co-operation in finishing the shooting of the film in a record time of 37 days in Sri Lanks, which resulted in a saving to Maharaja. The saving to Maharaja would of course not represent income to the assessee. The saving to Maharaja would of course not represent income to the assessee. If the letter had stopped there, it could well even be construed as a testimonial payment for an once and for all exertion put in by the assessee, beyond the call of the terms of the contract, or beyond all the commercial considerations required of the assessee. However, the letter goes on to state that the camera was given also "to continue our good relationship for the future." This would imply that the camera was given also as a spur to ensure closer co-operation in working between the assessee and Maharaja in future, which would also include the unfinished portion of the existing contract, and which would not rule out Maharaja expecting to enter into business contracts with the assessee in future. Making over of the camera to the assessee has, therefore, to be considered to be the parting of an article by Maharaja to the assessee in the course of business. The term "causa causans" has the meaning in Blacks Law Dictionary : "The immediate cause; the last link in the chain of causation." The term "Causa sine-qua-non" has the meaning in the same dictionary - "A necessary or inevitable cause; a cause without which the effect in question could not have happened; a cause without which the thing cannot be." In the present case, we have to hold that the business of producing the film and the work undertaken in pursuance of the contract thereof was the causa causans, i. e., the immediate cause for the making of the gift by Maharaja to the assessee. Therefore, it has to be considered as constituting remuneration and the value thereof would be liable to tax. For the sake of completeness we may state, as already adverted to by us in paragraph 2 of this order that the customs duty paid on this camera of Rs. 1,09,591 has been taken as the cost thereof and investment allowance claimed has been held to be allowable. This means that the item was used as a business asset. Though this is not conclusive of determining whether the value thereof would partake of the nature of income, this is indicative of the primary use of the article gifted, which cannot be ignored in the context. We accordingly uphold the findings of the authorities below in this regard. 23. This means that the item was used as a business asset. Though this is not conclusive of determining whether the value thereof would partake of the nature of income, this is indicative of the primary use of the article gifted, which cannot be ignored in the context. We accordingly uphold the findings of the authorities below in this regard. 23. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part.