# COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NAGPUR v. RAI BAHADUR JAIRAM VALJI AND OTHERS - **Citation:** [1959] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 110 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1959 - **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 109 of 1954 - **Bench:** Venkatabama Aiyab, P. B. Gajendbagadkab, A. K. Sabkab - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/commissioner-of-income-tax-nagpur-v-rai-bahadur-jairam-valji-and-others-1600 - **Pages:** 24 ## Headnote Income Tax-Capital or Revenue receipt-Compensation for premature termination of contract_..:.Whether trading reccipt-Liabi· lity to tax-Indian Income-tax Act, r922 (XI of r922). The respondent had been carrying on business in the production and supply of limestone since 1920, and under an agreement entered into with the Bengal Iron Company was supplying all its requirements of limestone and dolomite. Sometime later the Indian Iron and Steel Company took over all the assets and liabilities of the former company. Subsequently differences having arisen between the respondent and the Indian Iron and Steel Company they entered into an agreement on May 9, 1940, in settlement of all the disputes .between them whereby, inter alia, the respondent was to work a quarry of the company for a period of 25 years and to supply the limestone quarried therefrom to the company according to its requirements and to get from the railway authorities facilities for transporting the limestone more economically; and it was agreed that till such facilities were given, the respondent was to be paid Rs. 4000/- every month. Under the agreement the respondent had the right to work other quarries of his own and supply limestone so quarried to other purchasers. The railway authorities having declined to grant facilities, it became impossible to carry out the agreement in the manner contemplated by the parties, who, thereupon, entered into a fresh agreement on August 2, 1941, terminating (1) S.C.R. SUPREME COUHT REPORTS 111 the agreement dated May 9, 1940, on certain terms. The agree1958 ment provided inter alia (1) that the Company should pay "I~s. 2,50,000/- to the sellers as solatium besides the monthly instal- Commissio11er of merits of Rs. 4000/-", remaining unpaid under the contract dated Incotne-Ta" May 9. 1940, (2) that the company should purchase limestone v. from the respondent for a period of 12 years, and .(3) that the Jairam Valji respondent was to be appointed the loading contractors of the Company for loading iron ore. On a question as to whether the the sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- was liable to tax, the respondent claimed that it was not, being a capital receipt but the income-tax authorities held that it was a trading receipt and was income chargeable to tax. The High Court however held on a reference under s. 66(1), that the income was not chargeable to tax. and hence the present appeal. In support of the appeal, the respondent contended inter alia that (1) the contract dated May 9, 1940, was for a period of 25 years of which more than 23 years had still to run at the time of the settlement, and it was therefore an asset of an enduring character, capital in character, and the compensation paid therefor was a capital receipt. and (2) that the true character of the agreement was that it broug.ht into existence an arrangement which would enable the respondent to carry on a business and was not itself any business, and any payment made for the termination of such an agreement was a capital receipt. Held, that the contract of May 9, 1940, was entered into by the respondent in the ordinary course of his business and that the sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- which was paid as solatium for the cancellation of that contract, was a revenue receipt and was chargeable to tax. There is a distinction between a contract entered into in the usual course of business and an agency contract. While it may be possible to regard the latter as merely a framework for doing business, the former constitutes the business itself. and, therefore, compensation paid for the termination of the former kind of contract must be held to be revenue, whereas compensation paid for the termination of the latter might be capital in character. It would make no difference in the character of the receipt, when it is compensation for cancellation of a trading contract, whether its performance is to consist of a single act or a series of acts spread over a period. Case law reviewed. Van Den Berghs Ltd. ## Text _Characters 0–39,542 of 53,841. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39542 for what follows._ llO SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959) Supp. '958 question did not arise for consideration at that stage, M. c. v. s. did ~ot also consi~er any material to support their Ah .. achal• .vadar findmg. In the circumstances, the only reasonable Etc. course is to leave that question open so that it may v. be decided in appropriate proceedings. 1-he Slate of Mad.as .s. Othm In the result, subject to the aforesaid observations, the appeals are dismissed but without costs. Subba Rao ]. Ootober 7. Appeals dismissed. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NAGPUR v. RAI BAHADUR JAIRAM VALJI AND OTHERS (VENKATABAMA AIYAB, P. B. GAJENDBAGADKAB . and A. K. SABKAB JJ.) Income Tax-Capital or Revenue receipt-Compensation for premature termination of contract_..:.Whether trading reccipt-Liabi· lity to tax-Indian Income-tax Act, r922 (XI of r922). The respondent had been carrying on business in the production and supply of limestone since 1920, and under an agreement entered into with the Bengal Iron Company was supplying all its requirements of limestone and dolomite. Sometime later the Indian Iron and Steel Company took over all the assets and liabilities of the former company. Subsequently differences having arisen between the respondent and the Indian Iron and Steel Company they entered into an agreement on May 9, 1940, in settlement of all the disputes .between them whereby, inter alia, the respondent was to work a quarry of the company for a period of 25 years and to supply the limestone quarried therefrom to the company according to its requirements and to get from the railway authorities facilities for transporting the limestone more economically; and it was agreed that till such facilities were given, the respondent was to be paid Rs. 4000/- every month. Under the agreement the respondent had the right to work other quarries of his own and supply limestone so quarried to other purchasers. The railway authorities having declined to grant facilities, it became impossible to carry out the agreement in the manner contemplated by the parties, who, thereupon, entered into a fresh agreement on August 2, 1941, terminating (1) S.C.R. SUPREME COUHT REPORTS 111 the agreement dated May 9, 1940, on certain terms. The agree1958 ment provided inter alia (1) that the Company should pay "I~s. 2,50,000/- to the sellers as solatium besides the monthly instal- Commissio11er of merits of Rs. 4000/-", remaining unpaid under the contract dated Incotne-Ta" May 9. 1940, (2) that the company should purchase limestone v. from the respondent for a period of 12 years, and .(3) that the Jairam Valji respondent was to be appointed the loading contractors of the Company for loading iron ore. On a question as to whether the the sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- was liable to tax, the respondent claimed that it was not, being a capital receipt but the income-tax authorities held that it was a trading receipt and was income chargeable to tax. The High Court however held on a reference under s. 66(1), that the income was not chargeable to tax. and hence the present appeal. In support of the appeal, the respondent contended inter alia that (1) the contract dated May 9, 1940, was for a period of 25 years of which more than 23 years had still to run at the time of the settlement, and it was therefore an asset of an enduring character, capital in character, and the compensation paid therefor was a capital receipt. and (2) that the true character of the agreement was that it broug.ht into existence an arrangement which would enable the respondent to carry on a business and was not itself any business, and any payment made for the termination of such an agreement was a capital receipt. Held, that the contract of May 9, 1940, was entered into by the respondent in the ordinary course of his business and that the sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- which was paid as solatium for the cancellation of that contract, was a revenue receipt and was chargeable to tax. There is a distinction between a contract entered into in the usual course of business and an agency contract. While it may be possible to regard the latter as merely a framework for doing business, the former constitutes the business itself. and, therefore, compensation paid for the termination of the former kind of contract must be held to be revenue, whereas compensation paid for the termination of the latter might be capital in character. It would make no difference in the character of the receipt, when it is compensation for cancellation of a trading contract, whether its performance is to consist of a single act or a series of acts spread over a period. Case law reviewed. Van Den Berghs Ltd. v. Clark, [1935] A.C. 431, distinguished. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 109 of 1954. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 21, 1950, of the former Nagpur High Court in Misc. Civil Case No. 135 of 1949. 112 SUPREME COURT REPOH1'S [1959] Supp. R. Gmiapathy Iyer and R. H. Dhebar, for t.he appe1Co1nmissioner of ]ant. f,,come-Tax Radhavinod Pal, J, M. Thakar and I. N. Shroff, for v. the respondents. ]airum Valji V enkalar,1ma Aiyar } . 1958. October 7. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMA AIYAR J.-This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Conrt of Nagpur in a referpnce under s. 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act (XI of 1922), hereinafter referred to as the Act, and the point that is raised for our determination is whether a sum of Its. 2,50,000 received by the respondent on Angust 2, 1941, is chargeable to income.tax. While, according to the Department, the amount in question is a revenue receipt liable to be included in the chargeable income, according to the respondent it is capital receipt not liable to tax. The Appellate Tribunal held, affirming the decisions of the Jncometax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, that the amount in question was a trading receipt, and was income liable to be assessed. On the application of the respondent, it referred the following question for the decision of the High Court: " Whether in the circumstances of the case the sum of Rs. 2,50,000 rec'Pived by the assessee as damages or compensation for the premature termina• tion oft he contract of 9th May UJ40 is income assessable within the meaning of the Indian Income-tax Act." The reference was heard by Sen and Deo, JJ., who held, disagreeing with the Tribunal, that the sum of Rs. 2,50,000 was a capital receipt in the hands of the respondent, and that it was not liable to be taxed. The appellant then filed an application under s. 66(A)(2) of the Act for a certificate to appeal to this Court, but that was dismissed, the leamed judges holding that the law on the subject was well settled. The appellant thereafter applied to this Court for specialleave under Art. 136, and the same was granted, and hence this appeal. (I) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 113 The question whether a receipt is capital or income has frequently come up for determination before the courts. Various rules have been enunciated as furnishing a key to the solution of the question, but as often observed by the highest authorities, it is not possible to lay down any single test as infallible or any single criterion as decisive in the determination of the question, which must ultimately depend on the facts of the particular case, and the authorities bearing on the q11estion are valuable only as indicating the matters that have to be taken into account in reaching a decision. Vide Van Den Berghs Ltd. v. Clark (1). That, however, is not to say that the question is one of fact, for, a.s observed in Davies (H. M. Inspector of 'l'axes) v. The Shell Company of China Ltd. (2) "these questions between capital and income, trading profit or no tracling profit, are questions which, though they may depend no doubt to a very great extent on the particular facts of each case, do involve a conclusion of law to be drawn from those facts". Vide also the observations of Lord Greene, M. R. in Rustproof Metal Window Co.,. Ltd. v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue (3). That being so, we must first examine the facts of the present case, and then consider whether on those facts and in the light of the applicable principles, the sum of Rs. 2,50,000 received by the respondent is a capital or a revenue receipt. The respondent is a businessman whose trading activities run in several channels. He is a railway contractor ; he runs a rice mill and a sugar factory; he is ·a supplier of limestone and dolomite. It is with the last of these businesses that we are concerned in these proceedings. The respondent had acquired a quarry at Paraghat and had been himself working it and selling limestone quarried out of it to, among others, a Company called the Bengal Iron Company, Ltd. On January 5, 1935, the said Company entered into an agreement with the respondent for the purchase of all its requirements of limestone and dolomite from (1) [1935] A.C. 431. (2) (1951) 32 Tax Cas. 133. 151. (3) (1947) 29 Tax Cas. 243, 266. 15 Cotnniissio11er of Income-Tax v. ]airam Valji Venkatarama 4iyar ]. 114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. r958 the latter at rates specified therein, and these rates . . " were subsequently modified by another agreement Commissioner o, b h · d d D b 2 93 I Income-Tax etween t e parties at_e . ec~m er 1, l 5. n v. 1936 the Company went mto hqmdation, and its assets Jafram Valji and liabilities were taken over by another Company called the Indian Iron and Steel C9mpany, Ltd. under Venkata.ama a scheme of amalgamation dated September 8, 1936. Aiyar f. This Company continued to purchase limestone and dolomite from the respondent for some time, but later on, finding that the rates were uneconomic owing to increase in the railway freight, it dec:ided to purchase its requirements from other sources, and by notice dated May 29, 1939, informed the respondent accordingly. Thereupon, the respondent filed Suit No. 211 of 1940 in the High Court of Calcutta for specific performance of the contract dated January 5, 1935, as modified on December 21, 1935, and for an injunction restraining the Indian Iron aud Steel Company, Ltd. from purchasing limestone or dolomite from any person other than the plaintiff, and on March 13, 1940, an injunction in those terms was actually issued against the Company. Thereafter, the Company and the respondent entered into an agreement in settlement of all the disputes between them, and the same was embodied in a document dated May 9, 1940. As it i~ this document that forms the source for the payment of Rs. 2,50,000 to the respondent, it is necessary to refer to the terms thereof in some detail. Under this agreement, the respondent was to work a quarry of the Company at a place called Gangapur for a period of 25 years and to supply the limestone quarried therefrom to the Company according to its requirements. This quarry, it should be stated, was situated near Kulti where the Company carried on its smelting operations, aud obviously it would reduce the working expenses, if limestone required therefor could be got from Gangapur. There were, however, no facilities in Gangapur railway station for transporting the goods from the quarry, and so it was arranged that the authorities should be moved for permission to construct a siding at Gangapur, and that the cost thereof should be borne (1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 115 by the Company. It was expected that it would take z9ss 18 months before the siding could be completed, and Comniissioner of it was agreed that during that period the respondent Income-1·ax was to be paid Rs. 4,000 every month. Thereafter, v. the respondent was to be paid at the rate of Rs. 2-9-0 Jairam Valji per ton of limestone which might be loaded in the Venkatarama railway waggons to be arranged for by the Company. Aiyar J. The working of the quarry was left entirely in the hands of the respondent. It was he that was to purchase the machinery and the appliances necessary for quarrying. He was to engage his own workmen and put up all the requisite superstructures. After the limestone was raised from the quarry, he was to get it cleaned and rendered merchantable, and it was thereafter to be loaded in the wagon. There are two clauses in the agreement to which reference might be made. Under cl. 6, the respondent agreed "to supply to the Company such other quantities of limestone, if any, as the Company may order besides Kulti requirements ". Clause 13 of the agreement enjoined that the respondent was not to engage, during the subsistence of the agreement., in any other contract business for the working of any quarry within an area of 20 miles from the Company's quarry, but this was subject to the proviso that the respondent was free to work any quarry belonging to and held by him. To continue the narration, the railway authorities did not agree to the construction at Gangapur of a siding and a loopline to the quarry, and so it became impossible to carry out the agreement in the manner contemplated by the parties. It is in this situation that the parties came together, and on August 2, 1941, entered into a new agreement and it is with this that we are directly concerned in this appeal. The agreement recites that the Company feeling difficulty in working their mines referred to in the contract dated May 9, 1940, made a proposal for termination of the said contract on certain terms, and that was agreed to. The terms of the agreement are (1) that the Company should pay "Rs. 2,50,000 to the sellers as solatium besides the monthly instalments of Rs. 4,000 ",remain. mg unpaid under the contract dated May 9, 1940 ; (2) 116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. that the Company should take all the limestone required for its furnaces "'t Kulti from the respondent Com"'i"i0"" of for a period of 12 vears on terms and conditions snt ln&ome-Tax .J v. out in an agreement; (3) that the respondent was to J•iram Valji be appointed the loading contractors of the Company Yenllalarama Aiyat ]. for loading all iron ore at Monoharpore for a period of 12 years from January 1, 1942, on the terms and conditions specified in a separate agreement. Pursuant to this agreement, the respondent was paid a sum of Rs. 2,50,000 and the two agreements relating tu the purch11.se of limestone and the loading of iron ore at l\Ionoharpore were also executed. The balance due on account of monthly payment of Rs. 4,000 provided in the agreement of May 9, 1940, wa~ also duly paid. Now, on these facts, the question is whether the sum of Rs. 2,50,000 received by the respondent was capital or revenue. Before discussing the principles applicable to the facts as stated above, it is necessarv to deal with a contention raised on the facts Of the case Oil behalf of the respondent. Dr. Radha Binode Pal, who appeared for him, argued that for the purpose of carrying out the agreement dated January 5, 1935, the respondent - had executed works of a capital nature such as construction of quarters, tenements and the like, and had incurred expenses exceeding Rs. 4 lakhs on that account, that all this had to be thrown away when the quarry at Paraghat had to be abandoned, and the sum of Rs. 2,50,000 was really a reimbursement of the amount spent by him as above and was therefore a capital receipt. If the facts were as stated by the respondent, the position in law would no doubt be as contended for by him. But have those facts been established ? In his statement before the Income-tax Officer, the respondent merely stated that the amount in question was paid as consideration for the termination of the contract of 1935 and not of 1940, and it is pointed out by the Tribunal that the respondent did not substantiate even this assertion. There was no allegation that capital expenses had been incurred in the execution of the contract of 1935, and that the amount in question was paid as compensation therefor; (I) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 117 nor is there any evidence on that question. In deed, when it is remembered that the quarry at Paraghat had been abandoned before the contract dated May 9, 1940, was entered into, it is difficult to imagine how any amount paid as compensation for the cancellation of that contract can have any connection with expenses incurred with reference to that quarry. \Ve m~st hold that the sum of Rs. 2,50,000 was not paid as compensation for expenses thrown away and cannot be held to be a capital receipt on that account. Now, the contention on behalf of the appellant is that the contract dated May 9, 1940, was one entered into by the respondent in the ordinary course of his business, that the sum of Rs. 2,fi0,000 was paid admittedly as solatium for the cancellation of that contract, that the payment really represents the profits which the respondent could have made, had the cont.ract been performed, and that it is therefore a revenue receipt; and a number of authorities were quoted in support of this contention. \Ve shall now refor to the more important of them. In Short Bros. Ltd. v. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue (1), the facts were that the appellant Company which was carrying on business as shipbuilders had entered into a contract to build two steamers and later on, agreed to its cancellation on receipt of a sum of £ 1,00,000. The question was whether this was a capital or revenue receipt. Rowlatt, J., held that it was merely a receipt in a going concern and was revenue, and that was affirmed by the Court of Appeal, Lord Han worth, M.R., observ· ing that such a contract as the one before him was liable in the ordinary course of business to be altered or terminated on terms and the payment of £ 1,00,000 in settlement of the rights under the contract was an adjustment made between the appellants and their clients in the ordinary course of business. Similar observations are to be found in the judgment of Sargant, L. J. and Lawrence, L. J. It may be noted on the facts of the present case that the agreement of January 5, 1935, was modified on December 21, 1935, and the disputes which arose with reference thereto .(1) (1927) 12 Tax Cas. 955· Comtnissioner of I nconie-T ax v. J airam Valji Venkatarama Aiyar ]. , 118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. '958 were settled by the agreement of May 9, 1940, which Comm;,,;0 ,.,, of was, in turn, replaced by agreement dated August 2, In,ome-Tax 1941. The agreements dated May 9, 1940, and August v. 2, 1941, could therefore be properly said to be adjustJafrum Valji ments made in the ordinary course of business. Venkatarnma In The Commissioners of Inland Revenu.e v. 'l'he Aiya' 1. Northfieet Coal and Ballast Co., Ltd.('), the respondent Company which was the owner of a chalk quarry had entered into a contract with a purchaser for the supply of certain quantity of chalk for a period of ten years. After some time, the purchaser wanted to be relieved from the contract, and the respondent agreed to its termination on receipt, of£ 3,000. The point for decision was whether that was a capital or a revenue receipt. In holding that it was the latter, Rowlatt, J., observed: · "If the contract had gone forward those sums would have come into profits every year and now that they are represented by a commutation, so far as that is concerned, the point seeq1s to be concluded by Short's case(')". One of the contentions urged on behalf of the assessee was that the contract being for a term war; a capital asset, that the effect of the subsequent agreement terminating it on payment of£ 3,000 was in substance to assign the unexpired portion of the contract for a consideration, and that it \vould be a capital receipt on the principle laid down in John Smith & Son v. Moore(•). In repelling this contention, Rowlatt, J., observed: "These contracts are not being sold. They are not being even extinguished really for this purposf'. What is happening is that the profits under them are being taken; something is being taken in respect of the profits of them. That is the position. This sum represents the profits of the Company on the contracts, treating them as contracts· which notionally have earned or are going to earn a profit." And the decision in John Smith & Son v. Moore(•), was distinguished. (1) (1927) 12 Tax Cas. uo2. (2) (1927) 12 Tax Cas. 955. (3) (1921) 12 Tax Cas. 266. (1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT 'REPORTS 119 In John Smith & Son v. Moore (1), it may be stated r9$8 that the executors sold some outstanding contracts for -. -. the supply of coal to the son of the testator for a conco;m•ss•o~r 01 sideration, and it was held that the payment made by neo~~- a. the son for the purch11.se of the contracts was in his Jaitam Valji hands a capital expense. The payment was not given by one party to a contract to the other in cancellation v,nkatarama of the agreement but by a stranger to the contract to Aiyar J. one of the parties thereto for an assignment of his rights thereunder. In Jessee Robinson &: Sons v. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue (2), the appellant had entered into two contracts for the sale of yarn. The purchaser cancelled the contracts and paid £ 12,500 in settlement of the claims. The contention of the appellant was that this payment was not a trading. receipt or profit a.rising from his trade. In rejecting this contention, Rowlatt, J. observed: " It seems to me that there is no reason why the sum received in that respect for breach of contract is not a sum which is pa.rt of the receipts of the business for which that contract was made." Examining the facts of the present case in the light of the above decisions, the question to be considered is whether the contract dated May 9, 1940, WEiis !tlntered into by the respondent in the usual course of his business. If it was, then the amount paid for the termination of the contract must be held to be a trading receipt. That the respondent has been carrying on business in the production and supply of limestone is amply established. The record shows that he had been supplying limestone and dolomite to the Bengal Iron Company, Ltd., from about the year 1920 and that the contracts of 1935 were entered into only in the carrying on of that business. Viele para. 4 in the. plaint in Suit No. 211 of 1940 already referred to. The contract of May 9, 1940, was made in settlement of the rights under those contracts. It is to be noted that under the agreement dated August 2, 1941, under which he received a sum of Rs. 2,50,000, he also secured a contract for the supply of limestone for a period of 12 years. On these facts, it is impossible to (1) (1921) 12 Tax Cas. 266. (2) (1929) 12 Tax Cas. 1241. 120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. c9.1s come to any .conclusion other than that the contract C . . " in question was entered into by the res1JOndent in the omm1ss1oner o1 · • , , 1.,.0.,,_,rax ordma.ry course of his busmess. The learned Judges '" ,in the Court below observe that the assessee was not a I •ir•m v alji dealer in, though he was a supplier of, limestone. This appears to us to be a distinction without a differYenkatarama Aiyar J. ence. Moreover, it would be wholly immaterial for the present purpose whether the respondent was a dealer in or supplier of limestone, as, in either view, he would be carrying on business and the contract in question would be one entered into in th~ carrying on of that business. \Ve should also observe that the statement that the respondent was only a supplier but not a dealer in limestone does not ap.pear to be quite . accurate on the facts. Under cl. 13 of the agreement dated May 9, 1940, the respondent had the right to work other quarries of his own, and the evidence shows that he did supply limestone so quarried to other purchasers. In support of the judgment of the Court below, learned counsel for the respondent urged the following contentions : (1) The contract dated May 9, 1940, was for a period of 25 years of which more than 23 years had still to run at the time of the settlement, and it was therefore a.n asset of an enduring ch11.ra.cter, capital in character, and the comp.ensation pa.id therefor was a capital receipt. (2) The true character of the agreement was that it brought into existence an arrangement which would enable the respondent to carry on a business and was not itself any business and any payment made for the termination of such an agreement is a. capital receipt. (3) The business which was to be carried on ·pursuant to the contract was of a specialised character, that there was no general market for limestone and dolomite, that the contract in question formed practically the entire business of the respondent and the compensa.tioA paid for the closure of that business would not be a revenue receipt but a capital receipt on account of sterilisation of a capital asset. It is argued by Dr. Ra.dha. Binode Pal that the features (1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 121 st.ated above were not present in the contracts which '958 came up for consideration in the decisions cited for the Coi;uni-;::11., of appellant, and that they are therefore distingnishable, Incn1ne-T"" and he relied on other authorities as applicable to the v. fact.s of this case. These contentions and the aut hori" Jairmn Vnlji ties cited in support thereof must now be considered. r tnkutaratna (1) Is the receipt of l{s. 2,50,000 a capital receipt Aiyar ]. for the reason that it was compensation for the settlement of a contract which had a long life before it? The argument of the respondent. is that there is in the lncome-tax law a well-defined distinction bet.ween fixed capital and cfrcnlatiug capital (Vide John Smith & Son v • .. Moore) (1), that where there is a contract the performance of which is to be not once and for all but spread over a. period of years, it is in the nature of a fixed capital and a payment on account of it must be held to be capital receiμt.. Heliance is placed in support of this contention on the decisions iu Commissioner of Income-tax \". Shaw Wal/ace &: Uo. (") and Barr, Orombie & Co. Ltd. v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue (3) and certain ob.:ierva.tiom; in Kelsall Parsons & Go. v. Oommi'.ssioners of Inland Ruenne (4) and l'he Comrnis.sioner of lncometa.i.: and E.rcf88 Profits Ta:,;, ~lladras v. The South India i' ictures Ltd., Ear~ikudi (5). fn Income-ta:c Commissioner Y. Shaw Wallace &: Co. e), the respondent Company had been acting for several years as the distrilmting agents of two oil Companies. In 1927-28, these Companies decided to make their own distriliution arrangemeuts and accordingly terminated the agency of the respondent and paid compensation therefor. The question was whether thi,; amount was a revenue receipt in the hands of the respondent. lt was held by the Privy Council that it was a capital receipt, because it represented compensation paid for cessation of business, not profits earned in the carrying on of it. In Barr, Crombie & Co. Ltd. \'. Commissioners of Inland Revenue (8), the facts were that (1) (1921) 12 Tax C.as. 266. (2) (1932) L,R. 59 I.A. 206. (3) (1945) 26 Tax Cas. 406. (4) (1938) 21 Tax Cas. 6oS. (5) (1956] S.C.R. 223. 16 122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. 1958 under an agreement dated l\Ia.y 25, 1937, the appelCommissioner of la.nt had been appointed manager of a shipping Income-Tax company. for a period of 15 years, and one of the v. terms of the agreement was that if the company went f•i••m Valji into liquidation, the entire remuneration for the remaining period was payable forthwith. On Novemv enkalorama Ai.••• J. her 5, 1942, the company went into liquidation, and a sum of £ 16,306 16s. lld. was paid to the appellant as its remuneration for the period of about .8 years which was still to run. On a question as to whether this was taxable as a revenue receipt, it was held that as virtually the whole of the assets of the appellant company consisted -of the managing agency agreement, a payment for its extinction was a capital receipt and was therefore not taxable. Distinguishing the decision in Kelsall's case(') where compensation paid for the termination of an agency agreement was held to be a revenue receipt, the Lord President Normand observed: (at page 411). " Here we are not dealing with a single payment in return for the surrender of the prospect of making profits in the final year of the agreement, but with a payment for the surrender of an agreement while there was still a substantial period~indeed, more than half of the period of the agreement-to run ". Lord. Moncrieff agreeing with this conclusion observed that "so far from this being a prepayment of future remuneration for services, this was, if regard be had to 'the substance of the matter', a price paid upon the purchase and sale of the main asset of a business." Io Kelsall's case ('), the assessee carried on business as commission agents and acquired a number of agencies in the course of that business. One of these agencies which was for a period of three years was cancelled at the end of the second year on payment of £ 1,500 as compensation. The question was whether this was a capital or a revenue receipt. In holding that it was the latter, the Lord President, Normand observed that the business of the appellant was to acquire as many agencies as it could, that it was incidental to that agency that it should be modified, altered or discharged (1) (1938) 21 Tax C&s. 6o8. (1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 123 and that as the period outstanding was one year, it could not be said that the appellant was parting with an enduring asset of the business. Lord Fleming in agreeing with this conclusion stated that he attached importance to the fact that the agreement had only one year to run and that different considerations might arise if the outstanding period was considerable. "A different case would havt> arisen for decision'', he observed, (at p. 622) "if the agreement had been terminated when it had still, say, a period of 10 years to run. A payment made in respect of a loss to be sustained over a period of years may well have a. different character from a payment made in respect of a loss to be sustained in the year in which the payment is received." All these cases were considered by this Court in The Commissioner of Income-tax and Excess Profits Tax, Madras v. The South India Pictures Ltd., Karaikudi (1). There, the assessee was canying on business in the distribution of films, and in the course of such business entered into three contracts dated September 17, 1941, July 16, 1942, and May 5, 1945, with a company called the Jupiter Pictures, Ltd., for the production and distribution of three films for a period of 5 years. On October 31, 1945, the assessee and the Jupiter Pictures, Ltd., entered into an agt"eement terminating the contracts in consideration of a payment of Rs. 26,000 as compensation to the assessee. The question having been raised whether this was a. ca.pita.I or revenue receipt, this Court held that it was the· latter and was liable to be taxed, and the decision in Barr, Crombie & Co. Ltd. v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue (2) was distinguished on the ground that there the whole trade of the assessee was built on the agreement dated ~fay 25, 1937, that it was a fundamental asset of the assessee's business, and that the payment on account of it was a capital receipt. Now, it is the contention of the respondent that the present case is governed by the principles laid down in the above decisions and not those enunciated in the authorities cited for the appellant, and that the (1) [1956] S.C.R. 223. (2) (1945) 26 Tax Cas. 4o6. Com1nissioner of Incom1-1·as v. .I airam I' alji Ve11katarat110 Aiyar ]. 124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. ryjs payment of Rs. 2,50,000 as compensation on account c . . f of the agreement dated l\fay 9, 1940, falls within 0 7;;;,'.,'.:',~~·;, 0 Income-tax Commissioner v. Shaw Wallace & Co. (1) · "· and Barr, Crombie & Co. Ltd. v. Commissioners of In- .fuiiam Vdlfi land Reve111u.e (2) rather than Kelsall's case(') and The Commi.~.~ioner of Income.tax and Excess Pro.fits.Tax, v,nkatarnm,, 'Madras v. The South India Pictures Ltd., Karaikudi (') Aiyu,- ] . b d l\i 9 .ecause the contract date fay 9, 1 40, formed prac. tically the only business of the respondent and the contract had at the time of the settlement still a period of 23 years to run. It will be seen that the receipts, the chargeabi!ity of which was in quAstion in the decisions cited for the respondent, were all payments made as compensation for the termination of agency contracts, whereas we are concerned with an amount pa.id as sola.tium for the cancellation of a contract entered into by a businessman in the ordinary course of his business, and that, in our judgment, makes all the difference in the character of the receipt. In an agency cont.ract, the actual business consists in the dealings between the principal and his customers, and the work of the agent is only to bring about that business. In other words, what he does is not the business itself but something which is intimately and directly linked up with it. It is therefore possible to view the agency as the appamtus which leads to business rather than as the business itself on the analogy of the agreements in Van Den Berghs Ltd. v. Clark (5). Considered in this light, the agency right can be held to be of the nature of a capital asset invested in business. But this cannot be said of a contract entered into in the ordinary course of business. Such a contract is part of the business it.self, not anything outside it as is the agency, and any receipt on account of such a contract can only be a trading receipt. That there is a distinction between an agency agreement and a contra.ct made in the usual course of business will further be clear, if we have regard to one (1) (193•) L.R. .i9 I.A. •o6. (•) (1945) •6 Tax Cas 4o6. (3) (1938) .i Tax Cas. 6o8. (4) [1956] S.C.R. "3· (5) [r935] A. C. 431. (1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 125 of the reasons on which the conclusion that compensa19sB tion paid for cancellation of agency rights is a capital c . . ·' . . . t d I . th . b t omnussson" OJ receipt is sometimes res e . t is at, in su s ance, Inoomi-ra,. the agent assigns the agreement to the principal a.nd v. the compensation is price paid therefor. Vide the Jairam Valji-- observations of Lord Moncrieff in Barr, Crombie & Co. Ltd. v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue (1) at page 413 Venllatara""' Aiyar ]. already quoted. It no doubt sounds somewhat strange that an arrangement between parties to a contra.ct settling claims thereunder should be regarded a.s an assignment of the rights of one of them to the other, but it at least emphasises that the agreement is to be regarded as a capital asset of the agent, which is saleable. Such a concept will be out of place with reference to a contract entered into in the course of business. Any payment made for the non-performance or cancellation of such a contract can only be damages or compensation and cannot, in law or fact, be regarded as an assignment of the rights under the contract. A claim for damages is, in law, incapable of being transferred, though the benefit of a contract could be assigned while it is subsisting, and such assignment. can only be in favour of thfrd persons, not in favour of the other party to the contract, in which case it will be a new contract. Reference may in this connection be made to the observations of Rowlatt, J., in The Commissioners of Inland Revenue v. The Northfteet Coal and Ballast Co., Ltd.(~) already quoted, that such contracts were not sold. If, then, contracts entered into in the course of business cannot, unlike agency contracts, be regarded as capital assets of the business, would it make any difference in their character that they are to be in operation for a period ? On principle, it is difficult to see why it should. If under the terms of a contract a businessman A is to supply goods, let us say, 100 bales of yarn, on a particular day and he does that, the price received by him therefor \\•ill be a revenue receipt. And in the above case if the purchaser cancels the contract and pays damages to the seller, that would also be a. revenue receipt. If under the same (r) (1945) 26 Tax Cas. 406 (2) (1927) n Tax Cas. 1102. 126 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS (1959] Supp. r95B contra.ct A is to deliver the bales in four quarterly C . • instalments, and he does so and receives the price in onsmss.ston1r of .r. • I II h · Id b l•eome-Tax iour mste. ments, a t e receipts wou e revenue v. receipts. And if after one instalment is delivered, the J•;..,. valji purchaser cancels the contra.ct as regards future instalments and pays compensation therefor to the VnAatar•m• seller, such payment will undoubtedly be a revenue AiY•• 1· receipt. If the contra.ct is that A is to supply whatever goods ate ordered by the purchaser during a certain period, let us say, 10 yea.rs,. the price received for the goods ordered and delivered will be revenue receipt. Now, if the purchaser under this contra.ct puts an end to the contra.ct after some time, say, at the end of two yea.rs and pays compensation for the breach of the contra.ct as regards the remaining period, does the receipt thereof become a capita.I receipt ? It sounds illogical so to hold. How does it affect the true position, w he th er the contracting parties agree to carry on business in the sale and purchase of goods for a stated period on terms settled between them, or whether they enter into a succession of contracts for that purpose ? Two decisions have been quoted before us as showing that payments under a contra.ct entered into in the ordinary course of business would be revenue receipts, even though the agreement may be for a period. In The Commissioners of Inland Revenue v. The Northfteet Coal and Ballast Co., Ltd. (') cited above, the contract was for the supply of chalk for a period of ten yea.rs, and the compensation pa.id was for the cancellation of the contra.ct for the unexpired period of four yea.rs, and it was held to be a trading receipt. In Shove (H. M. lnspedor of Taxes) v. Dura Manufacturing Co. Ltd. ('), the. respondent company had introduced company A to company B, as the result of which -the former obtained a remunerative business with the latter. In return for this service, A a.greed to pay the respondent a commission on the business so obtained. Later on, this agreement was terminated on payment of a sum of £ 1,500 by A to the respondent. The question was whether this was a revenue (1) (1927) 12 Tax Cas. 1102. (>) (1941) 23 Tu Cas. 779, 783. (1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 127 receipt. In answering it in the affirmative, Lawrence, J., observed: " Reliance was also placed on certain dicta in the Court of Session in Kelsall Parsons & Go. v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue, at pages 620, 622 and 624, which suggest that if the contract cancelled has more than one year to run, the sum received for its caucellfore, when once it.