Capital receipt for permanent transfer of secret know-how was not trading profit under income tax principles.

A lump sum paid for the permanent transfer of secret processes and know-how was treated as capital because the real quid pro quo was the parting with a valuable capital asset, not remuneration for ordinary services. The payment was also not a trading receipt, as it was not referable to the company's existing wholesale trade or to profits arising from carrying on that trade. The fact that the company could continue other business activities did not change the essential character of the receipt. The sum was therefore outside assessable trading profits and was capital in nature.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the sum of 100,000 was a trading receipt assessable as part of the company's annual profits or gains under section 123 of the Income Tax Act, 1952. (ii) Whether, on the true construction of the agreement, the sum of 100,000 was capital or income in nature.

Issue (i): Whether the sum of 100,000 was a trading receipt assessable as part of the company's annual profits or gains under section 123 of the Income Tax Act, 1952.

Analysis: The payment was not referable to the carrying on of the company's existing wholesale druggist trade. The agreement did not amount to the exploitation of that trade, but to a new activity by which the company assisted in establishing a new industry for the Burmese Government and disclosed secret processes never previously revealed. There was no evidentiary basis for treating the receipt as a profit arising from the carrying on of trade.

Conclusion: The sum was not a trading receipt and was not assessable as trading profits.

Issue (ii): Whether, on the true construction of the agreement, the sum of 100,000 was capital or income in nature.

Analysis: The agreement was construed as a whole to ascertain the real quid pro quo for the lump sum. The company parted for ever with valuable secret information and know-how, enabling a new and competing industry to be set up, and thus made a partial realisation of a capital asset. The fact that some liberty to continue other business activities remained did not alter the essential character of the payment, which was not remuneration for services in the ordinary sense but consideration for the disposal of capital knowledge and rights.

Conclusion: The receipt of 100,000 was a capital receipt and not income.

Final Conclusion: The assessment could not stand because the payment was neither a trading receipt nor income, but a capital sum received for the parting with a valuable capital asset in the form of secret processes and know-how.

Ratio Decidendi: A lump sum paid for the permanent parting with secret processes or know-how, judged by the real nature of the transaction and its quid pro quo, is a capital receipt even if the recipient retains some ability to continue other business activities.

---