Summarize the following court judgment. Civil Appeal No. 30 of 1971. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 19th February	 1970 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in case Reference No. 2 of 1967. R. M. Mehta and section P. Nayar for the appellant. P. Ram Reddy and A.V.V. Nair for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA IYER	 J. Keynote thought. Politics and philanthropy may well fall victims to the contruction of section 5(a) and (j) of the Expenditure. Tax Act	 1957 (the Act for 1018 short) if we fall victim to the submission naively made	 at the first stage	 by counsel for the State. In fairness to him	 we must state that later he retracted from that position	 and rightly so	 for the Act	 in spirit and letter	 does not intend this blow on the profession of politics or the disposition for donations. A fair reading of the provisions in question convincingly excludes from 'taxable expenditure ' sums wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of a profession or occupation carried on by the assessee and no modern man may dispute that politics is a profession or occupation. Likewise	 expenditure by way of gift or donation incurred by the assessee is also excluded and no politically conscious soul will deny that donation to the party in a democracy squarely comes within this exclusionary provision. The factual matrix Expenditure tax under the Act was sought to be levied from the assessee PVG Raju	 the respondent before us. Paradoxical	 perhaps	 it may appear but here is a case of a rich Maharaja practising the politics of socialism	 spending lavishly for furthering his party 's popularity and the prospects of his fellow candidates at the elections to the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly. This expenditure	 falling under two heads	 was taxed by the assessing authority and upheld up to the Tribunal level. The High Court	 on reference	 reversed the findings on both counts and the Commissioner of Expenditure Tax	 the appellant	 challenges the legality of this verdict. The best beginning in stating the facts may well be to extract the questions of law referred by the Tribunal in its own words: "(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the expenditure of Rs. 38	832/ claimed to be the amount incurred by the assessee for the benefit of other candidates for election is excludible from the taxable expenditure either under Section 5 (a) or under Section 5 (j) of the Expenditure Tax Act ? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the sum of Rs. 47	867/ claimed to be party expenses could be excluded from the taxable expenditure of the assessee either under Section 5(a) or under Section 5(i) of the Expenditure Tax Act ? We have to assume the following facts as implied in the very questions referred to the High Court and from the attendant circumstances. They are: (a) that the respondent	 during the relevant period was the Chairman of the State Socialist Party which was interesting itself in electoral politics; 1019 (b) the respondent was a wealthy socialist; (c) that he was meeting not only the expenditure of his own elections but spending moneys for the benefit of other candidates belonging to his party; (d) that he was issuing cheques to the Secretary and other office bearers of his party to meet the expenses involved in party work. He expended Rs. 38	832/ for propelling the election prospects of other party candidates during the election. Likewise	 he gave Rs. 47	867/ to his party through its office bearers. On these facts the question is whether he is eligible for exclusion of the two sums from expenditure tax either under section 5(a) or under section 5(j) of the Act. Consideration of the legal issue It is appropriate to start with reading the relevant portion of s 5 of the Act: "section 5. No. expenditure tax shall be payable under this Act in respect of any such expenditure as is referred to in the following clauses	 and such expenditure shall not be included in the taxable expenditure of an assessee. (a) any expenditure	 whether in the nature of revenue expenditure or capital expenditure	 incurred by the assessee wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business	 profession	 vocation or occupation carried on by him or for the purpose of earning income from any other source; (b) to (i). (j) any expenditure incurred by the assessee by way of	 or in respect of any gift	 donation or settlement on trust or otherwise for the benefit of any other person. " The assessee was Party Chairman and politics was undoubtedly his profession or occupation	 it being admitted that his interest in politics was not causal nor sporadic but abiding and ambitious. The contention of the respondent which met with success before the High Court was that the election expenses of other candidates set up by him as Chairman of the Socialist Party	 loosely described as 'party expenditure '	 were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of his 'profession ' or 'occupation '. So	 the first point which arrests our attention in examining this contention is as to whether politics of the socialist brand or otherwise is a profession or occupation. There can hardly be any doubt that it is either	 or both. Harold Laski treated politics as a science and wrote his well known book on the Grammar of Politics	 but the art of politics at a practical level has also been the subject of comment and has been praised and denounced on the basis that it is a profession. To Gandhiji it is sacred as religion. In Lincoln it rises to noble heights of statesman 1020 ship. Lenin	 Nehru and a galaxy of other great visionaries and makers and moulders of the modern world have dedicated themselves to politics as a profession. Of course in its vulgar and vicious manifestations	 this occupation has been regarded by literary giants like Dr. Johnson as the last refuge of a scoundrel '. Robert Louis Stevenson has used barbed words: 'Politics is perhaps the only profession for which no preparation is thought necessary (Familiar studies of Men and Books	 'Yoshida Torajiro '). George Bernard Shaw uses stinging language in Major Barbara: 'He knows nothing; and he thinks he knows everything. That points clearly to a political career '. It is thus clear	 without reference to the wealth of case law relied on by the High Court	 that politics has been a profession and	 indeed	 under modern conditions in India	 perhaps the most popularand uninhibited occupation with its perils	 of course. Law cannot take leave of realities and therefore section 5(a) must bear the construction that politics is a profession or occupation. The next question is whether the expenditure incurred by the assessee for the election of candidates set up by him as Chairman of his party can be legitimately regarded as incurred 'wholly and exclusively ' for the purpose of his profession or occupation. We have grave doubts whether meeting the expenses of other candidates can be fulfilment of his professional expenses	 but this question deserves no deeper probe for the simple reason that section 5(j) embraces the expenditure as it does answer the description of a donation. When a person gives money to another without any material return	 he donates that sum. An act by which the owner of a thing voluntarily transfers the title and possession of the same from himself to another	 without any consideration	 is a donation. A gift or gratuitous payment is	 in simple English	 a donation. We do not require lexicographic learning nor precedential erudition to understand the meaning of what many people do every day	 viz.	 giving donations to some fund or other	 or to some person or other. Political donations are not only common	 but are assuming deleterious dimensions in the public life of our country. It is therefore clear that when this Raja assessee gave money to the candidates of his Party for them to meet their election expenses	 he made donations. Even if he met their election expenditure	 it was money gratuitously given on their behalf and therefore amounted to donation. Without straining language	 we reach the natural conclusion that what the respondent expended for the other candidates during the elections was 'donation ' in the language of the law. There is no suggestion nor evidence that any material return was in contemplation when he spent these sums. Being a politically important man with plenty of money and vitally interested in boosting his Party 's standing in the State	 he donated liberally for candidates set up by the party. In this view section 5(j) aplies to these donations which earn exemption from the expenditure tax. The next item relates to sums gives to the Socialist Party. It is reasonable to assume that the amounts paid to the office bearers 1021 of the party were without an eye on any material return other than loyalty or gratitude. They were outright gifts. Indeed	 many rich people out of diverse motives make donations to political parties. The hope of spiritual benefit or political goodwill	 the spontaneous affection that benefaction brings	 the popularisation of a good cause or the prestige that publicised bounty fetches these and other myriad consequences or feelings may not mar a donation to make it a grant for a quid pro quo. Wholly motiveless donation is rare	 but material return alone negates a gift or donation. We need not investigate the propriety or political donations 'unlimited ' and often invisible. All that we need consider is whether such sums are gifts and donations or are non gratuitous payments with a tag of return. We have no doubt that on the question as framed	 and on the facts and circumstances present	 these sums were paid purely as gifts and donations to his Party by the respondent. It is not surprising either	 because he was the Chairman of the said party	 had a long and liberal purse from which to draw and a large circle of support to build up in the long run. The inevitable conclusion from our discussion is that both the heads of expenditure fall under s.5(j) of the Act and	 therefore	 flow out of the assessable zone. The High Court 's conclusion is sound and the appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed	 but without costs. V.P.S. Appeal dismissed.

Under section 5 (a) and (j) of the Expenditure Tax Act	 1957	 no expenditure tax shall be payable on any expenditure incurred by the assessee wholly and exclu sively for the purpose of his business profession or vocation	 and on any expenditure incurred by the assessee by way of donation. The respondent assessee was the Chairman of the State Socialist Party and politics was his profession or occupation. He is a wealthy socialist and spent Rs. 38	832/ towards election expenses of other candidates of his party	 and gave Rs. 47	867/ to the office bearers of his party to meet the expenses involved in party work. ^ HELD: The two amounts are eligible for exclusion from expenditure tax. [1021 B] (1) Under modern conditions	 politics is a profession or occupation. [1020 C] (2) But the expenses incurred on behalf of other candidates cannot be the assessee 's professional expenses. [1020 D] (3) The amounts	 however	 fall under section 5(j) of the Act. When a person gives money to another without any material return	 he donates that sum. Therefore	 when the assessee gave money to the candidates of his party for their elections expenses	 it was money gratuitously given	 that is he made donations. [1020 E G] (4) Similarly	 the amounts paid to office bearers of the party were not for any material return. They were for loyalty or gratitude. Wholly motiveless donation is rare but material return alone negates a gift or donation. Therefore	 they also were outright gifts. [1021 A C]