<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1957 (7) TMI 38 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180767</link>
    <description>Termination of a chief agency may ordinarily produce capital compensation where it destroys the profit-making apparatus, and consideration for a restrictive covenant against carrying on life assurance business would likewise ordinarily be capital. Here, however, the payments were structured as monthly sums to nominated individuals, including a stranger, for varying periods and in one case for life, rather than as a fixed capital payment to the company followed by distribution. The arrangement showed a recurring income stream created for selected nominees, and the payments were not referable to any direct surrender of rights by the nominees themselves. On that basis, the receipts were treated as income receipts, not capital receipts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jul 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Apr 2016 12:18:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=422153" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1957 (7) TMI 38 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180767</link>
      <description>Termination of a chief agency may ordinarily produce capital compensation where it destroys the profit-making apparatus, and consideration for a restrictive covenant against carrying on life assurance business would likewise ordinarily be capital. Here, however, the payments were structured as monthly sums to nominated individuals, including a stranger, for varying periods and in one case for life, rather than as a fixed capital payment to the company followed by distribution. The arrangement showed a recurring income stream created for selected nominees, and the payments were not referable to any direct surrender of rights by the nominees themselves. On that basis, the receipts were treated as income receipts, not capital receipts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jul 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180767</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>