I gave up one of several agencies and was paid compensation. Is that a taxable trading receipt because agency work is my business?
Not on these facts. The Supreme Court held the payment was compensation for the loss of a capital asset. The test it laid down is this: where compensation is paid for the cancellation of a contract which does not affect the trading structure of the business, does not deprive the recipient of what in substance is his source of income, and where termination is a normal incident of the business leaving him free to carry on his trade, the receipt is revenue. Where the cancellation impairs the trading structure or costs him the source of his income, the compensation is normally capital. It mattered little that other agencies continued.
Decided by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India - J.C. Shah, K. Subba Rao and S.M. Sikri JJ; judgment by Shah J) on 1964-05-01, reported as 1965 AIR 65; 1964 SCR (8) 97; Civil Appeal No 226 of 1963. It bears on section 10 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, section 2(6C) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, section 28 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Assessment & Scrutiny matters.
This is the formulation practitioners use whenever a compensation receipt has to be characterised, and its value is that it replaced a search for a single test with a structural question. The Court accepted from Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji that no single criterion is decisive and the answer depends on a correct appraisal of all the relevant facts, but added that the question is not one of fact - it is a conclusion of law drawn from the facts, so it is open on a reference or appeal. It also disposes of the argument that won in the High Court: that because a company was formed to acquire managing agencies and held several of them, an agency was stock-in-trade and compensation for surrendering one was remuneration for conducting the business. The Court's answer is that the continuance of the other agencies matters little; what was parted with was an asset of enduring value.
Binding on every court and authority in India.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
By an agreement of 1 May 1925 Fort William Jute Company Ltd appointed the appellant, a public limited company at Calcutta, as its managing agent. The remuneration was Rs 3,000 a month, ten per cent commission on the profits of the company's working, three per cent on the cost of new machinery and stores bought abroad, and interest on advances. The appellant and its successors were entitled to continue unless they resigned, until they ceased to hold shares of the aggregate nominal value of Rs 1,00,000 and were removed on that account by special resolution, or until the agency was determined by winding up; on termination in those contingencies reasonable compensation for deprivation of office was payable as agreed or as fixed by arbitrators, and by clause 8 the agent could resign at any time on written notice. No period was specified, but by section 87A(2) of the Indian Companies Act 1913 the appointment would expire on 14 January 1957, without prevention of reappointment. The appellant also held the managing agencies of five other companies, had advanced Rs 12,50,000 to Fort William Jute on security of its stocks and goods, and in 1952 held 600 of 14,000 ordinary shares and 6,920 of 10,000 preference shares. By an agreement of 21 May 1952 with Mugneeram Bangur & Co, that firm was to buy the appellant's entire holding - ordinary at Rs 400 and preference at Rs 185 each - and offer the same rates to other shareholders; to procure repayment of the appellant's loans by 30 June 1952; to procure that the company compensate the appellant Rs 3,50,000 for loss of office, payable after resignation; and to reimburse the company that sum. The appellant told the members that heavy capital expenditure on modern machinery required debenture finance, that it could not provide further advances, that the arrangement was the most satisfactory solution, and that it was in the shareholders' interest to terminate an appointment which would otherwise run to 14 January 1957. The arrangement was carried out, the appellant resigned with effect from 1 July 1952, and Mugneeram Bangur & Co were appointed. The Rs 3,50,000 was credited in the profit and loss account as compensation for loss of office but excluded from the return for 1953-54. The Income-tax Officer included it. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held it a capital receipt and the Tribunal confirmed him, describing the transaction as an outright sale of the agency to a third party. On a reference the Calcutta High Court answered that it was a revenue receipt, and the appellant appealed on a certificate.
The question was answered in the negative - the Rs 3,50,000 was not a revenue receipt - and the appellant was given its costs in this Court. On the facts the payment was made to compensate the appellant 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. The Court rejected both grounds on which the High Court had proceeded - that the managing agency of Fort William Jute was stock-in-trade, and that because the appellant was formed to acquire managing agencies and held six of them, compensation for surrendering one was remuneration for conducting its business. The principle stated is that where payment is made to compensate for cancellation of a contract which does not affect the trading structure of the business, nor deprive the recipient of what in substance is his source of income, the termination being a normal incident of the business and leaving him free to carry on his trade, the receipt is revenue; where the cancellation impairs the trading structure or results in the loss of what may be regarded as the source of income, the payment is normally a capital receipt.
The Court began by refusing to look for a single test, adopting Venkatarama Aiyar J in Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji: various rules have been enunciated as keys, but no single test is infallible and no single criterion decisive, the answer depending on the facts of the particular case, with the authorities valuable as indicating the matters to be taken into account - yet the question is not one of fact, because, as Davies v Shell Company of China holds, questions between capital and income involve a conclusion of law drawn from the facts. It then set out the interrelation of facts. The agency could not be determined by the company before January 1957 except in the specified contingencies, unless the appellant resigned; five years were left to run and renewal was not barred; under the agreement no compensation was payable on a voluntary resignation. The resignation was in form voluntary but was part of the arrangement of 21 May 1952. A managing agency is in the nature of a capital asset, not denied by either side, and though not transferable like an ordinary asset, in practice the power to appoint or dismiss lies with those controlling the shareholding. Mugneeram Bangur & Co wanted the agency, and had to persuade the appellant to accept premature termination; they secured it for a triple consideration - purchase of the shares at an agreed price, discharge of the company's loans, and Rs 3,50,000 as compensation - so that the payment was an integral part of an arrangement for the transfer of the managing agency. Against that the Court set the two lines of authority. On one side, South India Pictures, where the sum was paid in the ordinary course to adjust relations with producers, no capital asset was parted with, the distributing agency continued and the structure of the business was not altered; Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji, a compensation for termination of a trading contract; and Peirce Leslie, where the loss of one of several managing agencies had little effect on the structure or the profit-earning apparatus and the termination came about in the ordinary course. On the other, Vazir Sultan and Sons, where compensation for restricting the area of an agency was capital because the agency agreements were not entered into in the carrying on of the business but formed part of its fixed capital, exploited by contracting with customers; and Godrej & Co, where a sum paid for agreeing to a reduction in managing agency remuneration was capital, being compensation for the deterioration of or injury to the agency rather than a make-up of the difference in remuneration. From that analysis the Court said a satisfactory measure of consistency in principle is disclosed, and stated the test in the terms set out above.
The transaction was not in the nature of a trading transaction, but was one in which the assessee parted with an asset of an enduring value.
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 WhatsAppNot on these facts. The Supreme Court held the payment was compensation for the loss of a capital asset. The test it laid down is this: where compensation is paid for the cancellation of a contract which does not affect the trading structure of the business, does not deprive the recipient of what in substance is his source of income, and where termination is a normal incident of the business leaving him free to carry on his trade, the receipt is revenue. Where the cancellation impairs the trading structure or costs him the source of his income, the compensation is normally capital. It mattered little that other agencies continued. This was decided by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India - J.C. Shah, K. Subba Rao and S.M. Sikri JJ; judgment by Shah J) and bears on section 10 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, section 2(6C) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, section 28 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as 1965 AIR 65; 1964 SCR (8) 97; Civil Appeal No 226 of 1963. This is the formulation practitioners use whenever a compensation receipt has to be characterised, and its value is that it replaced a search for a single test with a structural question. The Court accepted from Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji that no single criterion is decisive and the answer depends on a correct appraisal of all the relevant facts, but added that the question is not one of fact - it is a conclusion of law drawn from the facts, so it is open on a reference or appeal. It also disposes of the argument that won in the High Court: that because a company was formed to acquire managing agencies and held several of them, an agency was stock-in-trade and compensation for surrendering one was remuneration for conducting the business. The Court's answer is that the continuance of the other agencies matters little; what was parted with was an asset of enduring value. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Frame the enquiry around the trading structure: identify the profit-earning apparatus and show whether what was given up formed part of it or was merely a contract entered into in the course of working it.
By an agreement of 1 May 1925 Fort William Jute Company Ltd appointed the appellant, a public limited company at Calcutta, as its managing agent. The remuneration was Rs 3,000 a month, ten per cent commission on the profits of the company's working, three per cent on the cost of new machinery and stores bought abroad, and interest on advances. The appellant and its successors were entitled to continue unless they resigned, until they ceased to hold shares of the aggregate nominal value of Rs 1,00,000 and were removed on that account by special resolution, or until the agency was determined by winding up; on termination in those contingencies reasonable compensation for deprivation of office was payable as agreed or as fixed by arbitrators, and by clause 8 the agent could resign at any time on written notice. No period was specified, but by section 87A(2) of the Indian Companies Act 1913 the appointment would expire on 14 January 1957, without prevention of reappointment. The appellant also held the managing agencies of five other companies, had advanced Rs 12,50,000 to Fort William Jute on security of its stocks and goods, and in 1952 held 600 of 14,000 ordinary shares and 6,920 of 10,000 preference shares. By an agreement of 21 May 1952 with Mugneeram Bangur & Co, that firm was to buy the appellant's entire holding - ordinary at Rs 400 and preference at Rs 185 each - and offer the same rates to other shareholders; to procure repayment of the appellant's loans by 30 June 1952; to procure that the company compensate the appellant Rs 3,50,000 for loss of office, payable after resignation; and to reimburse the company that sum. The appellant told the members that heavy capital expenditure on modern machinery required debenture finance, that it could not provide further advances, that the arrangement was the most satisfactory solution, and that it was in the shareholders' interest to terminate an appointment which would otherwise run to 14 January 1957. The arrangement was carried out, the appellant resigned with effect from 1 July 1952, and Mugneeram Bangur & Co were appointed. The Rs 3,50,000 was credited in the profit and loss account as compensation for loss of office but excluded from the return for 1953-54. The Income-tax Officer included it. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held it a capital receipt and the Tribunal confirmed him, describing the transaction as an outright sale of the agency to a third party. On a reference the Calcutta High Court answered that it was a revenue receipt, and the appellant appealed on a certificate. The matter was decided on 1964-05-01 by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India - J.C. Shah, K. Subba Rao and S.M. Sikri JJ; judgment by Shah J). On those facts the Supreme Court held as follows. The question was answered in the negative - the Rs 3,50,000 was not a revenue receipt - and the appellant was given its costs in this Court. On the facts the payment was made to compensate the appellant 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. The Court rejected both grounds on which the High Court had proceeded - that the managing agency of Fort William Jute was stock-in-trade, and that because the appellant was formed to acquire managing agencies and held six of them, compensation for surrendering one was remuneration for conducting its business. The principle stated is that where payment is made to compensate for cancellation of a contract which does not affect the trading structure of the business, nor deprive the recipient of what in substance is his source of income, the termination being a normal incident of the business and leaving him free to carry on his trade, the receipt is revenue; where the cancellation impairs the trading structure or results in the loss of what may be regarded as the source of income, the payment is normally a capital receipt.
The Court began by refusing to look for a single test, adopting Venkatarama Aiyar J in Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji: various rules have been enunciated as keys, but no single test is infallible and no single criterion decisive, the answer depending on the facts of the particular case, with the authorities valuable as indicating the matters to be taken into account - yet the question is not one of fact, because, as Davies v Shell Company of China holds, questions between capital and income involve a conclusion of law drawn from the facts. It then set out the interrelation of facts. The agency could not be determined by the company before January 1957 except in the specified contingencies, unless the appellant resigned; five years were left to run and renewal was not barred; under the agreement no compensation was payable on a voluntary resignation. The resignation was in form voluntary but was part of the arrangement of 21 May 1952. A managing agency is in the nature of a capital asset, not denied by either side, and though not transferable like an ordinary asset, in practice the power to appoint or dismiss lies with those controlling the shareholding. Mugneeram Bangur & Co wanted the agency, and had to persuade the appellant to accept premature termination; they secured it for a triple consideration - purchase of the shares at an agreed price, discharge of the company's loans, and Rs 3,50,000 as compensation - so that the payment was an integral part of an arrangement for the transfer of the managing agency. Against that the Court set the two lines of authority. On one side, South India Pictures, where the sum was paid in the ordinary course to adjust relations with producers, no capital asset was parted with, the distributing agency continued and the structure of the business was not altered; Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji, a compensation for termination of a trading contract; and Peirce Leslie, where the loss of one of several managing agencies had little effect on the structure or the profit-earning apparatus and the termination came about in the ordinary course. On the other, Vazir Sultan and Sons, where compensation for restricting the area of an agency was capital because the agency agreements were not entered into in the carrying on of the business but formed part of its fixed capital, exploited by contracting with customers; and Godrej & Co, where a sum paid for agreeing to a reduction in managing agency remuneration was capital, being compensation for the deterioration of or injury to the agency rather than a make-up of the difference in remuneration. From that analysis the Court said a satisfactory measure of consistency in principle is disclosed, and stated the test in the terms set out above. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "The transaction was not in the nature of a trading transaction, but was one in which the assessee parted with an asset of an enduring value."
It was decided by the Supreme Court on 1964-05-01 and is reported as 1965 AIR 65; 1964 SCR (8) 97; Civil Appeal No 226 of 1963. 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 10 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, section 2(6C) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, section 28, 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 question was answered in the negative - the Rs 3,50,000 was not a revenue receipt - and the appellant was given its costs in this Court. On the facts the payment was made to compensate the appellant 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. The Court rejected both grounds on which the High Court had proceeded - that the managing agency of Fort William Jute was stock-in-trade, and that because the appellant was formed to acquire managing agencies and held six of them, compensation for surrendering one was remuneration for conducting its business. The principle stated is that where payment is made to compensate for cancellation of a contract which does not affect the trading structure of the business, nor deprive the recipient of what in substance is his source of income, the termination being a normal incident of the business and leaving him free to carry on his trade, the receipt is revenue; where the cancellation impairs the trading structure or results in the loss of what may be regarded as the source of income, the payment is normally a capital receipt. It arises in Assessment & Scrutiny matters, on section 10 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, section 2(6C) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, section 28 of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Supreme Court of India - J.C. Shah, K. Subba Rao and S.M. Sikri JJ; judgment 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. Ask whether termination was a normal incident of the business. Where the contract was always liable to end in the ordinary course, the compensation tends to be revenue. Do not concede the point because you carry on the same trade afterwards. That fact was pressed here and the Court held it made little difference. Remember that the characterisation is a conclusion of law from the facts, so it can be challenged on appeal and is not shielded as a finding of fact. Check whether a specific charging provision now covers your receipt; compensation on termination of an office or agency is dealt with expressly in the current Act, and a specific charge overtakes the general test.
Superseded by amendment. I read the facts, the High Court's reasoning as the Court sets it out, the concluding survey of authority and the operative answer; about 17,000 characters of the middle were not reproduced on the harvested page. I checked no later authority in this session. The batch line points to section 28(ii) of the 1961 Act, and I state from my own knowledge, unverified here, that compensation received on the termination or modification of a managing agency or a similar office is expressly charged as business income under that clause, so a receipt of this kind would today be taxed by force of a specific provision rather than left to the general test. The general test - whether the cancellation impairs the trading structure or costs the recipient the source of his income - survives and is applied across compensation receipts generally. 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 not reproduced on the harvested page. What is missing is the Court's treatment of the earlier authorities on capital and revenue receipts - the headnote names Shaw Wallace, Raja Bahadur Kamakshya Narain Singh and Van den Berghs among them - and the beginning of its discussion of Peirce Leslie; the text resumes in the middle of a quotation from Lord President Normand. The facts, the High Court's two grounds, the final survey of the two lines of cases, the statement of the test and the operative answer are all present, and this record rests on those. The harvested page's bench line names only Shah and Sikri while its own bench block adds Subba Rao, and the citation list does not include an ITR reference. The Court did not apportion the Rs 3,50,000 between the several elements of the arrangement, treating the payment as an integral part of one transaction. 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 question was answered in the negative - the Rs 3,50,000 was not a revenue receipt - and the appellant was given its costs in this Court. On the facts the payment was made to compensate the appellant 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. The Court rejected both grounds on which the High Court had proceeded - that the managing agency of Fort William Jute was stock-in-trade, and that because the appellant was formed to acquire managing agencies and held six of them, compensation for surrendering one was remuneration for conducting its business. The principle stated is that where payment is made to compensate for cancellation of a contract which does not affect the trading structure of the business, nor deprive the recipient of what in substance is his source of income, the termination being a normal incident of the business and leaving him free to carry on his trade, the receipt is revenue; where the cancellation impairs the trading structure or results in the loss of what may be regarded as the source of income, the payment is normally a capital receipt.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
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?
I restated my foreign currency creditors at the closing rate and debited an unrealised loss. Can the AO throw it out as a contingent liability?