I gave up one of my managing agencies and was paid compensation for it - is that a taxable revenue receipt?
It depends on what was given up, and here the answer was no. The Supreme Court held that the Rs 3,50,000 received for relinquishing the managing agency of Fort William Jute Co was a capital receipt. The test: where compensation is paid for cancelling a contract that does not affect the trading structure, does not deprive the recipient of what is in substance his source of income, and where termination is a normal incident of the business, the receipt is revenue; where the cancellation impairs the trading structure or costs the assessee the source of his income, it is capital. That the assessee held five other agencies made no difference.
Decided by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India - Shah and Sikri JJ (the report's citation block also names Subba Rao J); judgment delivered by Shah J) on 1964-05-01, reported as 1965 AIR 65; 1964 SCR (8) 97; AIR 1965 Supreme Court 65. It bears on section 28, section 4 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Assessment & Scrutiny and How Tax Law Is Read matters.
This is the judgment practitioners reach for on capital versus revenue receipts for terminated contracts and offices, because it does two things at once. It states a usable test - has the trading structure been impaired, or was the termination a normal incident of the business, leaving the trader free to replace what he lost? And it clears away two over-broad propositions: that compensation for loss of an office or agency is always capital, which is Shaw Wallace read at large, and that an assessee who holds several agencies must for that reason be treated as trading in them. The Court reviewed the Indian and English authorities and showed that they fall on two sides of one dividing line rather than under two competing rules. It also holds that a managing agency is in the nature of a capital asset.
Binding on every court and authority in India.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The appellant, a Calcutta company whose objects included carrying on managing agencies, had been managing agent of Fort William Jute Co since 1925 on a remuneration of Rs 3,000 a month, ten per cent of profits and three per cent on machinery and stores bought abroad. Under the Companies Act the appointment would run to 14 January 1957 and could be renewed. The appellant held five other managing agencies and had advanced Rs 12,50,000 to Fort William. In May 1952 it agreed with M/s Mugneeram Bangur & Co that they would buy its entire shareholding, procure repayment of the loans, and procure that the company pay it Rs 3,50,000 as compensation for loss of office, which they would reimburse. The appellant resigned with effect from 1 July 1952 and Mugneeram Bangur became managing agent. For 1953-54 the Income-tax Officer taxed the Rs 3,50,000. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal held it capital; on reference the Calcutta High Court held it revenue.
The Supreme Court answered the referred question in the negative: the Rs 3,50,000 was not a revenue receipt assessable to income-tax. What the assessee was paid was compensation for the loss of a capital asset. The transaction was not in the nature of a trading transaction but one in which the assessee parted with an asset of enduring value, and it mattered little that it continued to conduct its remaining agencies after the determination of this one. The Court rejected both grounds on which the High Court had proceeded - that on the facts the managing agency was stock-in-trade, and that because the appellant was formed to acquire managing agencies and in fact held six of them, compensation for surrendering one was remuneration for conducting its business. A managing agency of a company is in the nature of a capital asset, which was not disputed before the Court. The appellant was given its costs in the Supreme Court.
The Court began by refusing any single test: whether a receipt is capital or income depends on a correct appraisal of all the relevant facts in their true perspective, though the conclusion drawn from those facts is one of law. It then set out the facts that mattered. The agency had five more years to run and could be renewed; the appellant was entitled to substantial remuneration while it lasted; no compensation was payable on a voluntary resignation under the agreement; and the Rs 3,50,000 was an integral part of an arrangement for the transfer of the managing agency, alongside the sale of the shareholding and the discharge of the loans. Reviewing the authorities, the Court found they fall on two sides of one line. Where the cancelled contract is part of the business itself - a trading contract, or an agency whose loss is a normal incident of a business that goes on replacing such agencies - the receipt is revenue: South India Pictures, Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji, Peirce Leslie, and the English cases from Kelsall Parsons to Blackburn v Close Bros. Where the cancellation impairs the trading structure or destroys the source of income, it is capital: Vazir Sultan, Godrej, Sabine v Lookers. Shaw Wallace could not be read as laying down that compensation for loss of an agency is always capital, nor that each line of an assessee's business must be treated as an independent source. Applying the line to these facts, what this assessee gave up was an asset of enduring value, not a trading contract.
The test, applicable to contracts for termination of agencies is: what has the assessee parted with in lieu of money or money's worth received by him which is sought to be taxed?
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppIt depends on what was given up, and here the answer was no. The Supreme Court held that the Rs 3,50,000 received for relinquishing the managing agency of Fort William Jute Co was a capital receipt. The test: where compensation is paid for cancelling a contract that does not affect the trading structure, does not deprive the recipient of what is in substance his source of income, and where termination is a normal incident of the business, the receipt is revenue; where the cancellation impairs the trading structure or costs the assessee the source of his income, it is capital. That the assessee held five other agencies made no difference. This was decided by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India - Shah and Sikri JJ (the report's citation block also names Subba Rao J); judgment delivered by Shah J) and bears on section 28, section 4 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as 1965 AIR 65; 1964 SCR (8) 97; AIR 1965 Supreme Court 65. This is the judgment practitioners reach for on capital versus revenue receipts for terminated contracts and offices, because it does two things at once. It states a usable test - has the trading structure been impaired, or was the termination a normal incident of the business, leaving the trader free to replace what he lost? And it clears away two over-broad propositions: that compensation for loss of an office or agency is always capital, which is Shaw Wallace read at large, and that an assessee who holds several agencies must for that reason be treated as trading in them. The Court reviewed the Indian and English authorities and showed that they fall on two sides of one dividing line rather than under two competing rules. It also holds that a managing agency is in the nature of a capital asset. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Frame the enquiry as the Court did: what did the assessee part with in exchange for the money?
The appellant, a Calcutta company whose objects included carrying on managing agencies, had been managing agent of Fort William Jute Co since 1925 on a remuneration of Rs 3,000 a month, ten per cent of profits and three per cent on machinery and stores bought abroad. Under the Companies Act the appointment would run to 14 January 1957 and could be renewed. The appellant held five other managing agencies and had advanced Rs 12,50,000 to Fort William. In May 1952 it agreed with M/s Mugneeram Bangur & Co that they would buy its entire shareholding, procure repayment of the loans, and procure that the company pay it Rs 3,50,000 as compensation for loss of office, which they would reimburse. The appellant resigned with effect from 1 July 1952 and Mugneeram Bangur became managing agent. For 1953-54 the Income-tax Officer taxed the Rs 3,50,000. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal held it capital; on reference the Calcutta High Court held it revenue. The matter was decided on 1964-05-01 by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India - Shah and Sikri JJ (the report's citation block also names Subba Rao J); judgment delivered by Shah J). On those facts the Supreme Court held as follows. The Supreme Court answered the referred question in the negative: the Rs 3,50,000 was not a revenue receipt assessable to income-tax. What the assessee was paid was compensation for the loss of a capital asset. The transaction was not in the nature of a trading transaction but one in which the assessee parted with an asset of enduring value, and it mattered little that it continued to conduct its remaining agencies after the determination of this one. The Court rejected both grounds on which the High Court had proceeded - that on the facts the managing agency was stock-in-trade, and that because the appellant was formed to acquire managing agencies and in fact held six of them, compensation for surrendering one was remuneration for conducting its business. A managing agency of a company is in the nature of a capital asset, which was not disputed before the Court. The appellant was given its costs in the Supreme Court.
The Court began by refusing any single test: whether a receipt is capital or income depends on a correct appraisal of all the relevant facts in their true perspective, though the conclusion drawn from those facts is one of law. It then set out the facts that mattered. The agency had five more years to run and could be renewed; the appellant was entitled to substantial remuneration while it lasted; no compensation was payable on a voluntary resignation under the agreement; and the Rs 3,50,000 was an integral part of an arrangement for the transfer of the managing agency, alongside the sale of the shareholding and the discharge of the loans. Reviewing the authorities, the Court found they fall on two sides of one line. Where the cancelled contract is part of the business itself - a trading contract, or an agency whose loss is a normal incident of a business that goes on replacing such agencies - the receipt is revenue: South India Pictures, Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji, Peirce Leslie, and the English cases from Kelsall Parsons to Blackburn v Close Bros. Where the cancellation impairs the trading structure or destroys the source of income, it is capital: Vazir Sultan, Godrej, Sabine v Lookers. Shaw Wallace could not be read as laying down that compensation for loss of an agency is always capital, nor that each line of an assessee's business must be treated as an independent source. Applying the line to these facts, what this assessee gave up was an asset of enduring value, not a trading contract. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "The test, applicable to contracts for termination of agencies is: what has the assessee parted with in lieu of money or money's worth received by him which is sought to be taxed?"
It was decided by the Supreme Court on 1964-05-01 and is reported as 1965 AIR 65; 1964 SCR (8) 97; AIR 1965 Supreme Court 65. Binding on every court and authority in India. A Supreme Court decision binds every assessing officer, every Commissioner (Appeals), every bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and every High Court in India. An officer who declines to follow it is acting contrary to law, and that refusal is itself a ground of appeal. On section 28, section 4, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. The Supreme Court answered the referred question in the negative: the Rs 3,50,000 was not a revenue receipt assessable to income-tax. What the assessee was paid was compensation for the loss of a capital asset. The transaction was not in the nature of a trading transaction but one in which the assessee parted with an asset of enduring value, and it mattered little that it continued to conduct its remaining agencies after the determination of this one. The Court rejected both grounds on which the High Court had proceeded - that on the facts the managing agency was stock-in-trade, and that because the appellant was formed to acquire managing agencies and in fact held six of them, compensation for surrendering one was remuneration for conducting its business. A managing agency of a company is in the nature of a capital asset, which was not disputed before the Court. The appellant was given its costs in the Supreme Court. It arises in Assessment & Scrutiny and How Tax Law Is Read matters, on section 28, section 4 of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Supreme Court of India - Shah and Sikri JJ (the report's citation block also names Subba Rao J); judgment delivered by Shah J. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Show that the contract or office was part of the profit-making apparatus and not part of the trading itself - its duration, the income it produced, and what the business looked like once it was gone. Expect the department to argue that holding several similar contracts makes each of them stock-in-trade; the answer is that continuing the other agencies was held inconsequential. Do not rest on the label in the agreement or in your accounts - the assessee here had credited the sum as compensation for loss of office and the Revenue still fought it.
Validity check could not be completed. Only this judgment was available, and part of its text is missing. No later decision or amendment has been checked. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
About 17,000 characters from the middle of the judgment are missing from the harvested text - the passage running from the Court's rejection of the High Court's stock-in-trade reasoning through part of its review of the English authorities. What is written above comes from the parts that are present, which include the Court's own statement of the test, its survey of the leading cases and its conclusion. The judgment was decided under the 1922 Act, on sections 2(6c), 10 and 12; sections 28 and 4 of the 1961 Act are the corresponding provisions, and that mapping is mine, not the Court's. The page also carries a reporter's headnote and citator, which I have not used. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The Supreme Court answered the referred question in the negative: the Rs 3,50,000 was not a revenue receipt assessable to income-tax. What the assessee was paid was compensation for the loss of a capital asset. The transaction was not in the nature of a trading transaction but one in which the assessee parted with an asset of enduring value, and it mattered little that it continued to conduct its remaining agencies after the determination of this one. The Court rejected both grounds on which the High Court had proceeded - that on the facts the managing agency was stock-in-trade, and that because the appellant was formed to acquire managing agencies and in fact held six of them, compensation for surrendering one was remuneration for conducting its business. A managing agency of a company is in the nature of a capital asset, which was not disputed before the Court. The appellant was given its costs in the Supreme Court.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
Must you deduct tax on every payment to a non-resident, just to be safe?
I was paid to stay out of the business. Is the non-compete money capital or income?
I passed borrowed money to my sister concern interest-free. Can the AO disallow the interest I paid?
The officer says nobody would pay this premium for shares in my company. Is that a ground for taxing it under s.68?