Termination payment for exclusive distributorship treated as capital receipt because it destroyed an enduring profit-making source.

Termination payments under a distributorship arrangement were treated as capital, not revenue, where the arrangement conferred exclusive territory rights, monopoly selling rights, favourable purchase terms, and an enduring commercial advantage. Its termination destroyed a source of profit-making and impaired the business's capital structure, so the periodic form of payment and its description as remuneration did not change its character. The receipt was therefore outside the charge to income tax; section 4(3)(vii) was held inapplicable because the recipients were not employees and the payment was not recurring business income, and section 10(5A) did not apply because the statutory agency conditions were not met.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the amount received on termination of the distributorship arrangement was a taxable revenue receipt or a capital receipt not liable to tax; (ii) whether the receipt was excluded from total income under section 4(3)(vii); and (iii) whether the receipt fell within section 10(5A).

Issue (i): Whether the amount received on termination of the distributorship arrangement was a taxable revenue receipt or a capital receipt not liable to tax.

Analysis: The arrangement was not a mere contract for purchase and sale of stock-in-trade. It conferred an exclusive territory, monopoly rights of sale, favourable purchasing terms, and an enduring commercial advantage in the conduct of the business. Its termination did not merely affect trading operations; it destroyed a source of profit-making and therefore impaired the capital structure of the business. The periodic form of payment and the description as remuneration did not alter its true character. The payment was not referable to profits lost in ordinary trading and was not compensation for services rendered.

Conclusion: The receipt was a capital receipt and not taxable as income, profits or gains.

Issue (ii): Whether the receipt was excluded from total income under section 4(3)(vii).

Analysis: The assessees were not employees of the company and the payment was not remuneration for employment. The amount was also not a receipt in the nature of recurring business income. Since the payment was not income, the exclusion for casual and non-recurring receipts did not arise as a matter of necessity, though the character of the receipt was consistent with that exclusion.

Conclusion: Section 4(3)(vii) did not apply.

Issue (iii): Whether the receipt fell within section 10(5A).

Analysis: The assessees, in their individual capacity, were not holders of an agency and the firm itself was not an agent of the company. The statutory categories bringing a payment within section 10(5A) were therefore not satisfied.

Conclusion: The receipt did not fall within section 10(5A).

Final Conclusion: The payment was an ad hoc capital receipt outside the charging provisions, and the assessee succeeded on all substantial questions decided.

Ratio Decidendi: A payment made on termination of an arrangement that confers an enduring commercial advantage and forms part of the profit-making apparatus is a capital receipt, unless it is shown to be compensation for trading profits or for services rendered.

---