Judgment :- Radhakrishnan, J. The following question of law has been referred to this court on an application made under Section 256 (1) of the Incometax Act, 1961 at the instance of the Commissioner of Incometax. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the building tax paid Rs.1,98,608/- under the Kerala Building Tax Act is allowable business expenditure under Section 30(b) of the Incometax Act, 1961?” Applicant claimed a sum of Rs.1,98,609/- paid as building tax under the Kerala Building Tax as allowable business expenditure. Assessing authority did not accept the claim and took the view that the building tax paid under the Kerala Building Tax Act was incurred for bringing a capital asset into existence and is not an expenditure incurred for earning income. Assessee took up the matter before the Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals) who held that the building tax is allowable under Section 30(b) of the Incometax Act as business expenditure. Revenue aggrieved by the said order took up the matter in appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. 2. A Bench of this court in Michael Joseph & Co. v. C.I.T. (1997) 225 ITR 786) held that the building tax paid was part of capital asset and hence not part of the revenue expenditure. The court held in order to attract Section 30(b) payment of tax must be for the purpose of augmenting the business or profession. The said legal position has been reiterated by another Bench of this court in Continental Tourist Home v. C.I.T. (1998 (234) ITR 65). 3. Counsel appearing for the assessee, Sri C. Kochunni Nair, contended that the Tribunal was justified in holding that the building tax paid by the assessee is an allowable business expenditure especially in the light of the decision in India Aluminium Co. Ltd. V. C.I.T. (84 I.T.R. 735). Counsel submitted the above mentioned decision was not referred to by this court in the aforesaid two decisions and hence the decision of this court requires reconsideration and submitted that the matter may be referred to larger bench. Senior Standing Counsel for the Incometax Department Sri. P.K.R. Menon on the other hand contended that the decision in Indian Aluminium Co’s case, supra, case is not applicable to the facts of this case and hence no reference is warranted. 4. Senior Standing Counsel for the Incometax Department Sri. P.K.R. Menon on the other hand contended that the decision in Indian Aluminium Co’s case, supra, case is not applicable to the facts of this case and hence no reference is warranted. 4. We have examined the decision of the apex court in Indian Aluminium Co’s case. The question arose before the apex court in that case was whether payment of wealth tax is incidental to the carrying on of assessee’s trade and hence such payment is permissible deduction under section 10(2)(xv) of the Wealth Tax Act. The court held that if the expenditure is laid out by the assessee as owner cum trader and the expenditure is really incidental to the carrying on of his business, it must be treated to have been laid out by him as a trader and is incidental to his business. 5. The above mentioned decision would not apply so far as the question raised for consideration in this case. The Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 provides for levy of tax on building. Section 5 of the Act is the charging provision by which tax shall be payable by the owner of the building on the construction of the building. It is not of a recurring nature. Payment of tax under Section 5 is required to perfect title on the capital asset, i.e. the building because tax is a charge on the building under Section 19(2) of the Kerala Building tax Act. The amount paid towards building tax therefore forms part of the capital expenditure. Section 30 of the Incometax reads as follows: 30. Rent, rates, taxes, repairs and insurance for buildings. – In respect of rent, rates, taxes, repairs and insurance for premises, used for the purposes of the business or profession, the following deductions shall be allowed- (a) where the premises are occupied by the assessee- (i) as a tenant, the rent paid for such premises; and further if he has undertaken to bear the cost of repairs to the premises, the amount paid on account of such repairs; (ii) otherwise than as a tenant, the amount paid by him on account of current repairs to the premises; (b) any sums paid on account of land revenue, local rates or municipal taxes; (c) the amount of any premium paid in respect of insurance against risk of damage or destruction of the premises. Section 30(b) relied on by the assessee specifically refers to payment of municipal tax. Municipal tax is a recurring liability whereas building tax under the Kerala Building Tax Act 1975 is a one time liability, which is entirely different. Even if the assessee does not take up any business in the building he has to necessarily pay the building tax on completion of construction of the building. Municipal tax is specifically made an allowable deduction under Section 30(b) of the Act while there is no provision for allowing building tax, which is a one time liability. Even though counsel for the assessee, relying on the decision of the apex court in Indian Aluminium Co’s case, supra (84 ITR 735), contended that building tax like wealth tax is an allowable business expenditure under section 37 (1) of the Incometax Act, we are not inclined to accept the claim for more than one reason. In the first place we have held above that building tax is a capital expenditure and so much so it could not be allowed under Section 37(1) of the Incometax Act, which provides for deduction of only revenue expenditure. Secondly unlike the 1922 Act, detailed provisions for deduction of rent, rates, taxes etc. are provided under Section 30 of the Act, which provides generally for deduction of items of such expenditure, which are recurring liability. When section 30 specifically covers deduction of expenditure or taxes, we do not think the legislature intended such item of expenditure being considered for deduction under the residuary head of Section 37(1) of the Act. In such situation, we answer the question in favour of the Revenue and hold that the building tax paid under the Incometax Act is not an allowable business expenditure either under Section 30(b) or under Section 37 (1) of the Incometax Act 1961.