Specific deductions outlined in the Act must be treated as disjunctive and cumulative.

1. This reference raises two points. The assessed s business is that of an owner of motor-cars plying for hire. Only two points were raised before the learned Judge, though the first was raised under two heads. We propose first to dispose of the second contention.

2. The assessed was the owner of a new car which very shortly after it was purchased met with an accident and had to be sold as scrap iron and the learned Judge has held that this entitles him to claim a deduction under Section 10(2)(vii) of the Indian Income-tax Act of 1922 on the footing that this may be treated as having become in the words of the Act obsolete. It seems to us that this is contrary to the plain meaning of the language used. Obsolete machinery means machinery which though it is able to perform its function has become in common parlance out of date and performs its function so indifferently or at such a cost that a prudent man instead of continuing to use such machinery would discard it and instal more modern and more labour-saving machines. In our opinion, the word obsolete is quite inapplicable to a new car which is only useless for its purposes because it has been broken to pieces in an accident and in our opinion this cannot be allowed as a deduction and we disagree with the learned Judge.

3. A much more difficult point is raised with regard to the second matter which relates to certain items which were disallowed by the Income-tax authorities as being of the nature of capital expenditure which is excluded from deduction by Section 10(2)(ix). That sub-section allows any expenditure (not being in the nature of capital expenditure) incurred solely for the purpose of earning the profits or gains of the business. The latter comes to a total of Rs. 3,296-2-2 and it seems reasonably clear that the first three items were additions to the machinery and plant used by the firm, which can clearly be classed under the head of capital expenditure. The largest item is one of Rs. 1,925 which is described as the cost of an old car purchased from Tirali Srinivasa Aiyangar. The evidence of the assessed about that, which seems to have been accepted, is that he bought the car not to use it as a car but to resolve it into its component elements and use the parts for casual repairs to his existing fleet of cars. The remaining items are for the renewal of various parts of the cars actually engaged in the business of the assessed.

4. The Income-tax authorities rely upon a decision in Scotland under the statute in vogue at the time, viz., Section 12 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act of 1878, 41 Vic. c 15. That section directs the Commissioners in assessing the profits and gains of a trade to allow such deductions as they may think just and reasonable to represent the diminished value by reason of wear and tear during the year of any machinery or appliances used for the purpose of the concern and belonging to the person or company by whom the concern is carried on. Upon that it was held in the case of The Caledonian Railway Co. v. Banks (1) decided in the Court of Exchequer in Scotland that the assessed could not deduct the actual expenses of occasional repairs and renewals and then proceed to claim an additional deduction under the general section of the statute for the same thing under the guise of wear and tear. With that decision no one wishes to quarrel, but it is argued for the assessed that the position under the Indian Statute is quite different because the sections relating to deductions and the sub-sections allowing deductions must be taken to be disjunctive, and it is not an answer to a claim which clearly falls within the words of any one of the sub-sections to say to the assessed that he must be deemed to have obtained that deduction under some other sub-section. Deductions are allowed such as are material for the decision of this case under Section TO (2) v, vi and ix. Clause (v) allows a deduction in respect of current repairs to buildings, machine