https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290763 The Calcutta HC applied the settled distinction between capital and income, holding that the true character of the transaction must be determined from substance, not from the form or measure used in the contract. Once a lump sum is paid for the grant of an annuity, the capital is exhausted and the periodic receipts are treated as income, even if the payments are linked to the original sum or may in aggregate equal or exceed it. The court distinguished a mere capital repayment arrangement and treated the payments as taxable annuity receipts rather than capital repayments. en-us Fri, 13 Dec 1940 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 Oct 2020 11:27:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290763 The Calcutta HC applied the settled distinction between capital and income, holding that the true character of the transaction must be determined from substance, not from the form or measure used in the contract. Once a lump sum is paid for the grant of an annuity, the capital is exhausted and the periodic receipts are treated as income, even if the payments are linked to the original sum or may in aggregate equal or exceed it. The court distinguished a mere capital repayment arrangement and treated the payments as taxable annuity receipts rather than capital repayments. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 13 Dec 1940 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290763