JUDGMENT K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.—A short but interesting question arises in this reference. The question referred to us under the provisions of the Income Tax act, 1961, reads as follows : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that legal expenses claimed by the assessee fall under section 80VV of the Act and not under section 37 of the Act ?" 2. The assessee claimed a sum of Rs. 1,300 as an expenditure under section 37 of the Act. This sum of Rs. 1,300 was paid to two legal practitioners a sum of Rs. 1,000 to tax counsel as a retainer fee and another sum of Rs. 300 to another person to represent the assessee before the Registrar of Companies in connection with the business of the assessee. The statement of the case is not very clear that this sum of Rs. 300 was allowed, but it states that out of the total legal expenses of Rs. 1,300, Rs. 800 was appropriated towards the estimated expenditure as falling under section 80VV of the Act. The said section reads thus : "In computing the total income of an assessee, there shall be allowed by way of deduction any expenditure incurred by him in the previous year in respect of any proceedings before any Income Tax authority or the Appellate Tribunal or any court relating to the determination of any liability under this Act, by way of tax, penalty or interest : Provided that no deduction under this section shall, in any case, exceed in the aggregate five thousand rupees." 3. The assessee contended that the retainer fee paid to counsel was not for the purpose of the Income Tax Act proceedings referred to in section 80VV only, but it covered wider matters of taxation and tax planning such as the problems arising under the Sales Tax Act, etc., The Appellate Tribunal opined that 6 the apportionment made by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) estimating the payment of Rs. 800 out of Rs. 1,000 towards the proceedings referred to under section 80VV only could be permitted since the assessee has not produced any receipt to show that the entire sum of Rs. 1,000 was by way of retainer fee and not for any representation. 4. 800 out of Rs. 1,000 towards the proceedings referred to under section 80VV only could be permitted since the assessee has not produced any receipt to show that the entire sum of Rs. 1,000 was by way of retainer fee and not for any representation. 4. It is a well-known fact that retainer fees are paid towards general consultations, may be under particular legislations. A counsel is retained so that the assessee may have the benefit of proper legal advice as and when problems arise. The assessee may also resort to a consultation with the tax consultant for the purpose of tax planning. There may be other question arising in the course of the assessee's business touching upon the taxation laws. These problems cannot be separated item wise nor can the fee paid to the consultant regarding Income Tax cases before the authorities and fee paid regarding other matters be apportioned. The retainer fee is to be considered as one entity for the entire services kept ready by counsel as and when the assessee seeks the advice. 5. In the instant case, the Department has not questioned the genuineness of the payment. The question involved is under what head the deduction is to be granted. If the payment is attributable to the expenditure referred to under section 37, the same cannot be partially disallowed by shifting a portion as falling under section 80VV. In the instant case, that is what has been done. 6. Consequently, the question referred to us is answered in the negative and against the Revenue.