Judgment :- Paripoornan, J. At the instance of the Revenue, the Agricultural Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law, for the decision of this Court: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal right in law in holding that the expenditure incurred for advertisements in Souvenirs of political parties is an allowable deduction under the Agricultural Income Tax Act?" 2. The respondent, a public limited company, is an assessee to the Agricultural Income Tax. We are concerned with the assessment years 1975-76,1976-77 and 1977-78. During the assessments, the assessee claimed that the expenditure incurred for advertisements in the souvenir is a permissible deduction. This plea was negatived by the assessing authority. The disallowance was confirmed in first appeal. In second appeal, the Appellate Tribunal accepted the assessee's pica and held that the amount paid by the assessee company for advertisements in the souvenir of political parties was not a contribution and it is an admissible deduction in computing the income of the assessee. It is thereafter, at the instance of the Revenue, the question of law formulated herein above is referred to this Court by the Agricultural Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 3. We heard counsel. 4. The short question is, whether the expenditure incurred for advertisements in the souvenir is an allowable one under S.50) of the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act. S.50) of the Act has been liberally interpreted by a Full Bench of this court in T.R.C. No. 106 of 1991, in the judgment dated 17-11-1992, 1993 (1) KLT 44 =1993 KLJ (TAX Cases) 77 it is stated that S.50) of the Act is a residuary provision akin to S.10(2)(XV) of the Income Tax Act, 1922. It has also been laid down that the expenditure incurred for the purpose of deriving income from the land, whether the income is derived or not in the year, is allowable and that if there is a connection between the item of expenditure and the income earned, that is sufficient for the purpose of claiming deduction under S.50) of the Act. The above Full Bench decision was given effect to in ITR No. 162 of 1986, by this bench in the judgment dated 6-1-1993. Therein, the court fee and advocate's fee in filing a suit against the Government was considered to be a permissible deduction. The above Full Bench decision was given effect to in ITR No. 162 of 1986, by this bench in the judgment dated 6-1-1993. Therein, the court fee and advocate's fee in filing a suit against the Government was considered to be a permissible deduction. Similarly, in Commissioner of 'Agricultural Income Tax v. Midland Rubber and Produce Co. Ltd. (182 ITR 493), it has been held that the expenditure incurred by an assessee under the Agricultural Income Tax Act for advertisement in magazines and souvenirs is a permissible deduction under S.50) of the Act. 5. In the light of the above Bench decisions, we are of the view that the decision of the Appellate Tribunal is justified in law, when it held that the expenditure incurred for advertisements in souvenirs is an allowable deduction under the Act. We answer the question referred to this court in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference is disposed of accordingly. A copy of this judgment, under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar, shall be forwarded to the Agricultural Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kozhikode.