Capital receipt treatment for leasehold premium: a lump-sum salami realising enhanced capital value is not annual income under Section 12.

A lump-sum premium (salami) paid for waiver of forfeiture and substitution of a lessee that realises an enhancement in the capital value of a long-term leasehold is a capital, casual, non-recurring receipt and not annual income under Section 12 of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The conclusion rests on the assessee not carrying on a business of dealing in house property, the 50-year leasehold character, the lump-sum realisation of increased capital value for the residue of the term, and the statutory scheme lacking depreciation allowances, making revenue treatment unreasonable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 received by the assessee in 1923 as consideration for waiver of forfeiture and substitution of the lessee (described as a salami or premium) is assessable as income under Section 4(3)(7) read with Section 12 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 (i.e., revenue) or is a capital, casual, non-recurring receipt.

Analysis: The Court examined the character of the receipt in the context of the charge under Section 12 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 and the nature of the assessee's interest as a long-term leasehold (50 years). The Court noted that the assessment was made under Section 12 and that the assessee was not shown to be carrying on a business of dealing in house property; accordingly, provisions and allowances applicable to business or to notional annual value under Section 9 were inapplicable. The Court analysed the effect of the forfeiture event and the subsequent compromise with the incoming tenant, observing that the lump sum of Rs. 1,00,000 represented realisation at once of an enhancement in the capital value of the leasehold interest for the remaining long residue of the term. Having regard to the statutory scheme under Section 12 (which contains no allowance for depreciation of fixed capital) and to the nature of salami or premium as payment for a re-settlement of the leasehold interest in respect of the remaining term, the Court held that it would be unreasonable to treat such a lump-sum realisation of enhanced capital value as annual revenue. The Court further noted that treating the amount as revenue would be inconsistent with the exclusion of depreciation allowances and with the distinction between changes in capital value and net revenue from the capital asset.

Conclusion: The sum of Rs. 1,00,000 is a capital, casual, non-recurring receipt (a premium on the leasehold interest) and is not assessable as income under Section 12 of the Income-tax Act, 1922; the question is answered in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A lump-sum premium (salami) received in consideration of waiver of forfeiture and substitution of a lessee, which realises an enhancement in the capital value of a long-term leasehold interest, is a capital receipt and not annual assessable income under Section 12 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 where the assessee is not carrying on a business of dealing in house property and the statutory head lacks depreciation allowances.

---