TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court rules insurance compensation as capital receipt not subject to income tax under section 10(1)</h1> <h3>Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West Bengal Versus National Insurance Co. Limited</h3> Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West Bengal Versus National Insurance Co. Limited - [1978] 113 ITR 37 Issues Involved:1. Whether the compensation of Rs. 81,069 received by the assessee was a capital receipt or a revenue receipt.2. Whether this compensation was assessable to income-tax u/s 10(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.Summary:Issue 1: Nature of Compensation (Capital vs. Revenue Receipt)- The assessee, an insurance company, received Rs. 81,069 as compensation u/s 7 of the Life Insurance (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1956, for the deprivation of the management of its life insurance business.- The Income-tax Officer treated this amount as a revenue receipt, while the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal held it to be a capital receipt.- The Tribunal's decision was based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Dwarkadas Shrinivas v. Sholapur Spinning & Weaving Co. Ltd., which stated that the right to manage a business is a property and compensation for its deprivation is a capital receipt.- The Delhi High Court's decision in Lakshmi Insurance Co. (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax was cited, where it was held that such compensation is a capital receipt as it pertains to the deprivation of a capital asset, not merely its user.- The court agreed with the Delhi High Court's reasoning, emphasizing that the right to manage the business was an integral part of the assessee's profit-making apparatus and thus a capital asset.Issue 2: Assessability to Income-tax u/s 10(1)- The court reframed the question to focus on whether the compensation was assessable as a revenue receipt u/s 10(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.- The court held that the compensation was not a revenue receipt as it did not arise from the ordinary course of business but from the total deprivation of the management and possession of the life insurance business.- The court noted that the compensation was for the sterilization of the entire profit-making apparatus of the assessee, making it a capital receipt.- The court dismissed the argument based on the amendment to section 28 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, introduced by the Finance Act, 1973, as it did not apply to the assessment year in question.Conclusion:- The court concluded that the compensation received by the assessee was in the nature of a capital receipt and was not taxable as a revenue receipt.- The question was answered in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee, with no order as to costs.Agreement:- C. K. Banerji J. concurred with the judgment.
TaxTMI 