9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the compensation of Rs. 20,000 received by the applicant on the cancellation of the agreement was a revenue receipt or a capital receipt. Summary: Issue 1: Nature of Compensation Received - The assessee-company, engaged in business as Technical Consultants, Engineers, and Contractors, had an agreement with Hevea Corporation for industrial lining jobs valid until February 15, 1975. The agreement included a clause for compensation for default by either party at Rs. 48,000 per year of the uncompleted period. - A subsequent agreement dated March 26, 1974, modified the original terms, with Hevea agreeing to pay Rs. 20,000 as compensation for the assessee's covenant not to carry on any business in rubber lining and rubber bonding until April 16, 1975. - The Income-tax Officer treated the Rs. 20,000 as a revenue receipt, considering it compensation for loss of income. - The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this view, stating that the compensation was for the loss of income for the remaining period of the contract and not for the loss of a source of income. - The Appellate Tribunal also agreed, emphasizing that the compensation was for the loss of profits that could have been derived by the assessee for the unexpired period of the contract. Arguments by the Assessee: - The assessee argued that the compensation was for the cancellation of the agreement, which prevented them from carrying on the rubber lining business, thus constituting a loss of a source of income and should be treated as a capital receipt. - The assessee relied on several judicial precedents, including Gillanders Arbuthnot and Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1964] 53 ITR 283 (SC), CIT v. Best and Co. P. Ltd. [1966] 60 ITR 11 (SC), and CIT v. Saraswathi Publicities [1981] 132 ITR 207 (Mad). Arguments by the Department: - The Department contended that the agreement was in restraint of trade, creating monopolistic rights for Hevea, and the compensation was for the loss of income for the remaining period of the contract. - The Department cited Kettlewell Bullen and Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1984] 53 ITR 261 (SC) and Gillanders Arbuthnot and Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1964] 53 ITR 283 (SC) to support their stance. Court's Analysis: - The court noted that compensation for mere loss of profits is a revenue receipt, while compensation for loss of capital structure is a capital receipt. - The court found that the assessee was not engaged in the business of rubber lining and rubber bonding but was procuring business for Hevea and receiving commission. - The subsequent agreement prevented the assessee from procuring such business for one year, which did not constitute a loss of a source of income or affect the capital structure of the assessee. - The court concluded that the compensation was for the loss of commission income for the remaining period of the contract, making it a revenue receipt. Conclusion: - The court held that the receipt of Rs. 20,000 by way of compensation was revenue in nature and answered the question in the affirmative and against the assessee.
|
