ZahiruddIn Vs. State of Mysore and anr.

- income tax act,1961[c.a.no.43/1961] -- sections 21 (1) & 31(1): [k.l. manjunath & a.s. bopanna, jj] change of sound system in a theater whether to be treated as capital expenditure or a revenue expenditure? held, it has to be seen that whether the change of sound system has increased the revenue or not. admittedly the old sound system was in existence for several years and due to use of the very same sound system for several years, the old system was worn out. if the assessee has provided certain amenities to its customers by replacing the old system with a better sound system, it cannot be said that the assessee has increased its income. instead of repairing the old stereo system, the assessee has installed the dolby stereo system. this has not benefited the assessee in any way with regard to its total income since there is no change in the seating capacity of the theatre or increase in the tariff rate of the ticket. it is a revenue expenditure and not a capital expenditure. - 2. it appears to us that there is no substance in the petition for article 19(1)(g) has to be read along with article 19(6) since it enables the state to make any law imposing in the interests of the general public reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by article 19(1)(g). section 11 (1) of the mysore shops and establishments act like some other provisions of the act is intended to regulate conditions of work in shops and commercial establishments which necessarily includes the safeguarding of the interests of employees and other similar establishments......carrying on business in his cycle shop on a declared weekly holiday. he has filed this writ petition for quashing the entire proceedings on the ground that the said provision, i.e., section 11 (l) of the act is wholly void. he has also urged that section 6 of the act which enables government by notification to exempt either permanently or for any specified period, any establishment or class of establishments, or person or class of persons, from all or any of the provisions of this act, subject to such conditions as the government deem fit, is void as it is arbitrary and discriminatory and does not contain within itself any criteria for such exemption. the latter question however does not arise for consideration in this petition since it is not the petitioner's case that he applied for exemption and was refused such exemption. the attack against the constitutionality of section 11 (1) is on the ground that, it offends article 19(1)(g) of the constitution inasmuch as it comes in the way of his exercising his profession or carrying on his occupation, trade or business. he further contends that it is against public interest inasmuch as his profession or trade is in the nature of public utility service. 2. it appears to us that there is no substance in the petition for article 19(1)(g) has to be read along with article 19(6) since it enables the state to make any law imposing in the interests of the general public reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by article 19(1)(g). section 11 (1) of the mysore shops and establishments act like some other provisions of the act is intended to regulate conditions of work in shops and commercial establishments which necessarily includes the safeguarding of the interests of employees and other similar establishments. the petitioner himself admits that in addition to himself and the other members of his family there are employees working in his establishment, a weekly holiday on a definite day in the week is.....