9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: The judgment addresses the questions of law regarding the taxation of a sum received as damages and its classification as revenue receipt for assessment year 1970-71.
Question 1 - Taxability of Damages Received: The partnership firm entered into an agreement with a company, where disputes arose leading to an arbitration award for damages. The firm received a total sum, part of which was allocated for various purposes. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) brought the remaining amount to tax in the assessment for 1970-71. The firm contended that this amount represented compensation for termination of the agency agreement, a capital receipt not liable to tax. Alternatively, it argued that since it followed the mercantile basis of accounting, the income accrued in earlier years and could not be taxed in the current year. The Appellate Authority accepted these submissions and deleted the addition. However, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal disagreed, stating that the damages were paid as commission the firm would have earned if the agreement was implemented, making it a revenue receipt. The Tribunal also noted discrepancies in the firm's accounting methods. The High Court analyzed the methods of accounting, citing relevant case laws, and concluded that the disputed amount could not be taxed in the year of receipt if the firm followed the mercantile system for commission income. Question 2 - Classification of Damages as Income: The High Court addressed whether the damages received were taxable as the income of the firm for the assessment year 1970-71. It emphasized that the amount in dispute related to commission the firm would have earned under the agreement, not a premature termination of the agency. Referring to Section 28(ii) of the Income Tax Act, the court determined that the damages were a revenue receipt liable to tax. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the department on Question 1 and in favor of the firm on Question 2, awarding costs to the firm due to the main controversy surrounding Question 2. This judgment clarifies the tax implications of damages received under a contractual agreement and underscores the importance of consistent accounting methods in determining tax liabilities.
|
