<?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>1956 (2) TMI 75 - COURT OF APPEAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277102</link>
    <description>Compensation received for termination of an agency agreement is taxable as a trading receipt where, on the facts, it is paid in compromise of a breach claim and does not relate to injury to goodwill or the destruction of a capital asset. The decisive question is whether the taxpayer has merely lost contractual rights in the ordinary course of trade or has surrendered an enduring profit-making structure; there is no fixed rule, and the answer depends on substance and degree. As the taxpayer remained in agency business and the cancelled contract was only one of several, the payment was held to arise from trade rather than from sterilisation of the profit-making apparatus.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Feb 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Nov 2018 11:30:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=543700" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1956 (2) TMI 75 - COURT OF APPEAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277102</link>
      <description>Compensation received for termination of an agency agreement is taxable as a trading receipt where, on the facts, it is paid in compromise of a breach claim and does not relate to injury to goodwill or the destruction of a capital asset. The decisive question is whether the taxpayer has merely lost contractual rights in the ordinary course of trade or has surrendered an enduring profit-making structure; there is no fixed rule, and the answer depends on substance and degree. As the taxpayer remained in agency business and the cancelled contract was only one of several, the payment was held to arise from trade rather than from sterilisation of the profit-making apparatus.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Feb 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277102</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>