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>Supreme Court: Termination payment as capital receipt. Compensation for loss of office generally capital.</h1> <h3>Karam Chand Thapar And Brothers Private Limited Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Central), Calcutta</h3> Karam Chand Thapar And Brothers Private Limited Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Central), Calcutta - [1971] 80 ITR 167 (SC), AIR 1971 SC 1590, (1972) 4 ... Issues:Interpretation of whether a payment received by a company for termination of managing agency is a revenue or capital receipt.Analysis:The case involved an appeal by an assessee regarding the assessment year 1952-53, focusing on a payment of Rs. 18 lakhs received by the company for the termination of its managing agency. The Income-tax Officer initially treated the payment as advance remuneration, but the Appellate Assistant Commissioner considered it as compensation for termination. The Tribunal then held that the payment was a capital receipt, as the termination of the managing agency represented the destruction of a source of income for the company. The High Court, however, reversed the Tribunal's findings, deeming the transactions as not genuine and considering the payment a revenue receipt due to the company's managing agencies being its stock-in-trade.The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction by re-examining the Tribunal's factual findings, as the Tribunal was the final fact-finding authority. The Court reiterated the principle that compensation for loss of office or agency is generally a capital receipt, but exceptions exist, such as when the termination is within the normal business framework and does not impair the profit-making structure. In this case, the Tribunal found that the termination of the agency led to the destruction of a source of income for the company, justifying the classification of the payment as a capital receipt.The Court highlighted that determining whether a receipt is capital or income depends on the specific facts of each case and involves a conclusion of law drawn from those facts. Various guidelines and rules have been developed to assist in making this determination. Applying these guidelines to the case at hand, the Court concluded that the payment for termination of the managing agency should be considered a capital receipt due to its impact on the company's income source.In conclusion, the Court allowed the appeal, discharged the High Court's answer, and ruled in favor of the assessee, considering the payment as a capital receipt. The department was directed to bear the costs of the appellant in both the Supreme Court and the High Court.
TaxTMI 