Judgment :- K.S. Paripoornan, J. These two references are made by the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kozhikode, as per the statement of the case dated 12-2-1987. The assessing authority passed an assessment order against the assessee M/s. Cochin Malabar Estates and Industries Limited, for the assessment year 1973-74. The order of assessment for the said year was the subject matter of two appeals before the Appellate Tribunal, both by the assessee and also by the Revenue. The Tribunal passed a consolidated order in the said two appeals dated 1-8-1986. While considering the appeals, the Appellate Tribunal allowed a sum of Rs. 1132/- as a permissible deduction in computing the Agricultural Income of the assessee. The said sum represented expenses incurred in connection with sales tax appeals. Aggrieved by the said portion of the common order, the Revenue moved the Tribunal for referring a question of law and the following question (Question No. 1) has been referred to this Court, at the instance of the Revenue: (1) "Whether, on facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal right in law in holding that the expenditure incurred in connection with the sales tax appeals was an allocable deduction in computing the agricultural income of the assessee?" The Appellate Tribunal further held that a sum of Rs. 2020/- incurred by the assessee for services in connection with the application for alteration of Memorandum of Association of the Company, in a capital expenditure and not allowable deduction. Aggrieved by the said portion of the common order, the assessee moved the Appellate Tribunal to refer a question of law for the decision of this court, and in that context question No. 2 has been referred by the Appellate Tribunal, at the instance of the assessee. Question No. 2 is as follows: (2) "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal right in law in holding that the expenses incurred in connection with the alteration of the Memorandum of Association of the Company was not an admissible deduction in computing the agricultural income of the assessee?" So, question No.1 is referred at the instance of the Revenue and question No. 2 is referred at the instance of the assessee. 2. 2. The Appellate Tribunal in its common order dated 1st of August, 1986 has clearly stated that payment of Sales tax is an allowance under S.5(n)(ii) of the Act and so any expense incurred with a view to reduce such tax liability is also an admissible deduction. Counsel for the assessee brought to our notice a few bench decisions of this Court, they are: - Commissioner of Agricultural Incometaxv. Kartikulam and Alalhur Estates (169 ITR 386); Commissioner of Agrl. Income tax v. Malabar Industries Company Limited (169 ITR 390); Commissioner of Agrl. Income tax v. Emerald Valley Estates Limited(169 ITR 392)-,Commissioner of Agrl. Incometaxv. Kartikulam. and A lathur Estates Limited (169 ITR 393) and Commissioner of Agrl. Income tax v. Nellithanam Rubber Company Limited (169 ITR 395). In the above cases, it has been broadly held that expenses incurred in filing appeal, revision, reference application etc., (claimed as legal charges) are allowable deduction in computing the agricultural income under S.5(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income tax Act, It was concluded in the said decisions that the legal expenses incurred and classified as professional fee for taxation work is an admissible expenditure in computing the agricultural income under S.50) of the Act. The question as to whether the expenses incurred in connection with the sales tax appeals is a permissible deduction was not specifically noted in the said decisions. S.5(n)(ii) of the Agrt. Income tax Act is as follows: "Computation of agricultural Income - The agricultural income of a person shall be computed after making the following deductions, namely: - (n) In the case of agricultural income referred to in sub-clause (2) of the clause (a) of S.2-(agricultural income from agricultural): - (ii) any taxes or rate paid on the cultivation or sale of the crop from which such agricultural income is derived;" It is common ground that for the sale of agricultural produce of the assessee Sales-tax is levied and paid. If that be so, any expense incurred in connection with such sales-tax payment by way of appeals or revisions etc.; and professional fee paid in connection there with is a permissible deduction under S.5(n)(ii) of the Act. The Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding so. 3. We, therefore, answer question No.1 in the affirmative - against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. 4. The only other question is whether a sum of Rs. The Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding so. 3. We, therefore, answer question No.1 in the affirmative - against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. 4. The only other question is whether a sum of Rs. 2020/- incurred in connection with the alteration of the Memorandum of Association of the assessee is an allowable deduction. The Appellate Tribunal negatived the plea for allowance holding that this is a capital expenditure. We arc of the view that the Appellate Tribunal has not analysed the matter and made an in-depth study as to what is the revenue expenditure as distinguished from capital expenditure. The latest land-mark decisions of the Supreme Court in Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. C.I.T. (124 ITR 1) C.I.T. v. Associated Cement Companies Ltd. (172 ITR 257) and Alembic Chemical Works Co.Lld. v. C.I.T. (Ill ITR 377) have laid down the law on the point. This Bench had occasion to consider the matter in a recent decision in Plantation Corporation of Kerala v. Commissioner of Agrilncometax (1993 (2) KLT 94). At page 97 of the report (paragraph 6) we held thus: "A broad understanding of the ratio of the three Supreme Court decisions would go to show that even in a case where expenditure is incurred for obtaining an advantage of enduring benefit, emphasis should be placed on the nature of advantage in a commercial sense and if the advantage consists merely in facilitating the assessee's trading operation or enabling the management and conduct of the assessee's business to be carried on more efficiently or more profitably while leaving the fixed capital untouched the expenditure should be held to be on revenue account even though the advantage may endure for an indefinite future. The test of enduring benefit has been held to be not a decisive or conclusive test, it cannot be applied blindly and mechanically. The question must be viewed in the larger context of business necessity or expenditure. If the expenditure is so related to the carrying on or the conduct of the business, it may be regarded as an integral part of the profit earning process and not for acquisition of an asset or a right of a permanent character. It has also been held that there is a dichotomy between profit earning process and profit earning machinery or apparatus. It has also been held that there is a dichotomy between profit earning process and profit earning machinery or apparatus. These aspects have been highlighted in the Bench decision of this Court in FcdcralDank 's case (180 ITR 241)". applying the above test we are inclined to hold that the expenses incurred for services in connection with the application for alteration of Association of the company is really an expenditure incurred for carrying on the business of the company and is an integral part of the profit earning process, and not for acquisition of an asset or a right of a permanent character. In this view, a sum of Rs. 2020/- incurred for alteration of the Memorandum of Association of the company is a revenue expenditure. We hold so. The Appellate Tribunal was in error in taking the view that the expenses incurred in that behalf is a capital expenditure. 5. We answer question No. 2 referred to this court, in the negative - against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. Both the questions are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference are disposed of as above.