1951 (9) TMI 51

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ictures Ltd., is a private limited company. Its business consisted of distribution of films. The right of distribution in some instances was acquired by them by advancing money to producers; in other cases they purchased the pictures for exhibition and distribution. The dispute in the assessment year relates to a sum of Rs. 26,000 which the assessee received as compensation for the termination of three contracts relating to the distribution of three pictures and which was paid by the producers to the assessee. The agreements were dated 17th September, 1941, 16th July, 1942, and 10th May, 1945. In all the three cases, the agreements were for a period of five years to commence from the date of the first release of the picture. There are vario....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 1343. In that case Shaw Wallace and Co., carried on business in Calcutta as merchants and agents of various companies and they had branches at different parts of India. They acted as distributing agents in India of the Burmah Oil Company and also the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. In 1927, the two oil companies made arrangement for the distribution of their products and the agency of the assessee company was terminated, for which a large amount of compensation was paid by the oil companies. The question that arose for decision was whether the amounts so paid represented the profits of the business of the assessee taxable under Section 10 of the Income-tax Act. The Judicial Committee held that it was not taxable as it was not an amount receive....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hey continued to pursue, and the profits of which have been taxed in the ordinary course without objection on their part. But it is clear that the sum in question in this appeal had no connection with the continuance of the respondents' other business. The profits earned by them in 1928 were the fruit of a different tree, the crop of a different field". The next line of argument adopted on behalf of the Income-tax Commissioner is that the receipt in the present case is in the nature of a casual receipt and is not really income and that was the basis of the judgment also of the Judicial Committee. Even here, it is difficult to accept the contention. All that the Judicial Committee pointed out in that case was that the receipt in quest....