1961 (1) TMI 11 - SC - Income Tax

Whether on a proper construction of the deed of assignment dated 7th of May 1935 and on the facts and in the circumstances of this case the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of 77, 820 represented a receipt of a revenue nature in the hands of the applicant and assessable as such ? Held that - The appellants had however not sold the entirety of the rights acquired by them from the Karanpura Company. The conveyance was subject to several restrictions and the appellants retained in part rights in the land conveyed. The transaction was substantially a commercial transaction for sharing the profits of the commercial activities of the Associated Cement Ltd. The High Court was therefore right in holding that the transaction dated May 7 1935 was a commercial transaction and the payment under clause (1) thereof at the rate of 13 as. per ton of cement sold was of the nature of income and not capital. Appeal dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Nature of the payment received under the deed dated May 7, 1935.
2. Whether the sum of Rs. 77,820 received by the appellants was a capital receipt or a revenue receipt.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Nature of the payment received under the deed dated May 7, 1935:

The appellants, Messrs. National Cement Mines Industries Ltd., conveyed the benefits of four leases and two agreements to Associated Cement Ltd. by a deed dated May 7, 1935. The deed included various covenants, such as the payment of 13 annas per ton of cement manufactured from the limestone won from the lands. The deed also imposed numerous restrictive covenants on the transferee, including prohibitions on selling fluxstone to Tata Iron & Steel Company at a price less than Rs. 1-14-0 per ton and obligations to pay half the profits from selling fluxstone to Tata Iron & Steel Company or any other person.

The court analyzed the nature of the deed and concluded that it was not a conveyance of all the rights of the appellants nor a sale of the rights conveyed. The transaction imposed numerous restrictions inconsistent with the character of a sale and included a covenant authorizing termination of the deed if the limestone was exhausted. The deed was not a lease or a joint venture but a commercial transaction for sharing the profits of the commercial activities of Associated Cement Ltd.

2. Whether the sum of Rs. 77,820 received by the appellants was a capital receipt or a revenue receipt:

The appellants received Rs. 77,820 from Associated Cement Ltd. under the first covenant of the deed, which was computed at the rate of 13 annas per ton of cement manufactured from the limestone won from the lands. The Income-tax Officer included this amount in the total assessable income of the appellants for the assessment year 1946-47, and this inclusion was confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The High Court was asked to determine whether this sum represented a receipt of a revenue nature or a capital receipt.

The court referred to various precedents to distinguish between capital receipts and revenue receipts. It noted that where property is conveyed in consideration of periodical payments, the payments are typically considered income and taxable. The court concluded that the transaction dated May 7, 1935, was a commercial transaction, and the payment under clause (1) at the rate of 13 annas per ton of cement sold was of the nature of income and not capital. Therefore, the sum of Rs. 77,820 was correctly included in the assessable income of the appellants.

Conclusion:

The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the High Court's decision that the payment under the deed was of the nature of income and not capital was upheld. The sum of Rs. 77,820 received by the appellants was deemed a revenue receipt and assessable as such.

← Previous Next →