# GILLANDERS ARBUTHNOT AND CO., LTD v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CALCUTTA - **Citation:** [1964] 8 S.C.R. 121 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1962-01-10 - **Case number:** Civil Appeals Nos. 825-828 of 1963 - **Bench:** K. Subba Rao, J. c. SHAH, S. M. S!Kri - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/gillanders-arbuthnot-and-co-ltd-v-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-calcutta-3241 - **Pages:** 13 ## Headnote Income Tax-Capital or revenue-Termination of agencY-Compensa~ tion-Business of several agencies-Cancellation of single agencyNature of compensation. The appellant company was carrying on business in diverse Jines as managing agents of some concerns, distributing agents of others and u secretaries of still other class of concerns. It also dealt as an ex1964 May I. 1964 Gillanders Arbuthnot and Co. "· C.l.T. Shah J. 122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS porter and importer. shipping agent, and as buyer and dealer in dive"" commodities. A large amount of business wu done by the appellant as an agent of foreign companies in respect of different kinda of goods. In respect of explosives manufactured by the Imperial Chemical Industries (Export) Ll'd .• Glasgow, Scotland, the appellant wu acting u the sole agent and distributor of that company. The agency agreement was terminable at the option of the principal company, and by a Jetter dated March 11, 1947. the latter informed the appellant that the agency would stand terminated from April I, 1948 and that compensation would be paid for termination of the agency. The appellant was be paid an amount which was computed on the basis of the profits of the business. In the course of the proceedings 'for asaessment to income-tax appellant claimed that the amount was received on determination of the agency being receipt of a capital nature and was not liable to be included in total income of the appellant, but the Income~tax Officer rcjcctett the claim holding that cancellation of a single contract of agency out of a number of selling agencies held by the appellant was in the ordinary course of business and that the sum received as compensation was revenue taxable under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 . . Held: Having regard to the vast array of business done by the appellant as agents, the acquisition of agencies was in the normal course of business and the determination of individual agencies, a normal incident, could not affect or impair the trading structure of the appallant, nor involve a loss of an enduring trading asset. and the compensation received by the appellant, therefore, did not represent the price paid for loss of a capital asset but only a payment made for the loss of profit it suffered by the cancellation of its agency and was income chargeable to the income-tax. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 825-828 of 1963. Appeals from the judgment and order dated January 10, 1962, of the Calcutta High Court in Income-tax Reference No. 33 of 1957. B. Sen, P. K. Chatterjee and D. N. Gupta, for the appellant. K. N. Rajagopal Sastri and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent. May 1, 1964. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHAH, J.-The appellant which is a public limited com· pany incorporated under the Indian Companies _Act, 1913, has its registered office at Calcutta, and branches m Bo.mbay, Madras, New Delhi and Kanpur. The appellant earned on 8 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 123 business in diverse lines, which may broadly be classified as 1964 (1) buying and selling on its own account, ( 2) introducing Gilland;;;- Arbucustomers to principals ( 3) acting as managing agents, ( 4) thnot and Co. acting as shipping agents, ( 5) acting as purchasing agents, c.1:T. ( 6) acting as sole importers and distributors on behalf of Ullited Kingdom principals liaving no organisation in India and ( 7) acting as secretaries. Since January 21, 1886, M/s. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. predecessors-in-interest of the appellant were the sole agents and distributors in India of explosives manufactured by the Imperial. Chemical Industries (Export) Ltd. Glasgow, Scotland, hereiaaftet called 'the principal company'. There was no written agreement between the principal company and M/s Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. incorporating the terms of the agency agreement. It is however coriimon ground that the agency agreement was terminable at the option of the principal company. The appellant was incorporated for tak ## Text .S S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 121 in principle is disclosed. Where on a consideration of the 196'# circumstances, payment is made to compensate a person Kettlew-;u-Bullen for cancellation of a contract which does not affect the and Co. v. trading structure of his business, nor deprive him of what CJ.T. in substance is his source of income, termillation of the Shah 1• -contract being a normal incident of the business, and such cancellation leaves him free to carry on his trade (freed from tbe contract terminated) the receipt is revenue: Where by the cancellation of an agency the trac! ing structure of the assessee is impaired, or such cancellation results in loss -Of what may be regarded as the source of the assessee's income, tbe payment made to compensate for cancellation of the agency agreement is normally a oapital receipt. In the present case, on a review of all the circumsc:mces, we have no doubt that what the assessee was paid was to compensate him for loss of a capital asset. It matters little whether the assessee did continue after the determination of its agency with tbe Fort William Jute Co. Lid to conduct the remaining agencies. The transaction was not in the nature of a trading transaction, but was one in which the. assessee parted with an asset of an enduring value. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the High Court that the amount received by the appellant was in the nature of · a revenue receipt. We accordingly record the answer on the question submitted by the Tribunal in the negative. The appellant would be entitled to its costs in this Court. GILLANDERS ARBUTHNOT AND CO., LTD. v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CALCUTTA (K. SUBBA RAO, J. c. SHAH AND S. M. S!KRI, JJ.) Income Tax-Capital or revenue-Termination of agencY-Compensa~ tion-Business of several agencies-Cancellation of single agencyNature of compensation. The appellant company was carrying on business in diverse Jines as managing agents of some concerns, distributing agents of others and u secretaries of still other class of concerns. It also dealt as an ex1964 May I. 1964 Gillanders Arbuthnot and Co. "· C.l.T. Shah J. 122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS porter and importer. shipping agent, and as buyer and dealer in dive"" commodities. A large amount of business wu done by the appellant as an agent of foreign companies in respect of different kinda of goods. In respect of explosives manufactured by the Imperial Chemical Industries (Export) Ll'd .• Glasgow, Scotland, the appellant wu acting u the sole agent and distributor of that company. The agency agreement was terminable at the option of the principal company, and by a Jetter dated March 11, 1947. the latter informed the appellant that the agency would stand terminated from April I, 1948 and that compensation would be paid for termination of the agency. The appellant was be paid an amount which was computed on the basis of the profits of the business. In the course of the proceedings 'for asaessment to income-tax appellant claimed that the amount was received on determination of the agency being receipt of a capital nature and was not liable to be included in total income of the appellant, but the Income~tax Officer rcjcctett the claim holding that cancellation of a single contract of agency out of a number of selling agencies held by the appellant was in the ordinary course of business and that the sum received as compensation was revenue taxable under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 . . Held: Having regard to the vast array of business done by the appellant as agents, the acquisition of agencies was in the normal course of business and the determination of individual agencies, a normal incident, could not affect or impair the trading structure of the appallant, nor involve a loss of an enduring trading asset. and the compensation received by the appellant, therefore, did not represent the price paid for loss of a capital asset but only a payment made for the loss of profit it suffered by the cancellation of its agency and was income chargeable to the income-tax. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 825-828 of 1963. Appeals from the judgment and order dated January 10, 1962, of the Calcutta High Court in Income-tax Reference No. 33 of 1957. B. Sen, P. K. Chatterjee and D. N. Gupta, for the appellant. K. N. Rajagopal Sastri and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent. May 1, 1964. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHAH, J.-The appellant which is a public limited com· pany incorporated under the Indian Companies _Act, 1913, has its registered office at Calcutta, and branches m Bo.mbay, Madras, New Delhi and Kanpur. The appellant earned on 8 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 123 business in diverse lines, which may broadly be classified as 1964 (1) buying and selling on its own account, ( 2) introducing Gilland;;;- Arbucustomers to principals ( 3) acting as managing agents, ( 4) thnot and Co. acting as shipping agents, ( 5) acting as purchasing agents, c.1:T. ( 6) acting as sole importers and distributors on behalf of Ullited Kingdom principals liaving no organisation in India and ( 7) acting as secretaries. Since January 21, 1886, M/s. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. predecessors-in-interest of the appellant were the sole agents and distributors in India of explosives manufactured by the Imperial. Chemical Industries (Export) Ltd. Glasgow, Scotland, hereiaaftet called 'the principal company'. There was no written agreement between the principal company and M/s Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. incorporating the terms of the agency agreement. It is however coriimon ground that the agency agreement was terminable at the option of the principal company. The appellant was incorporated for taking over the business of M/ s Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. and since it took over the "distributing agency the appellant acted as the sole agent and distributor of explosives manufactured by the principal company, but without a written agreement. In May 1945 the principal company desired to set up its own organisation for distributing its products, and intimated the appellant that the agency of the appellant may be cancelled after two or three years. By letter dated March, 11, 1947, the principal company informed the appellant that the agency will stand terminated from April 1, 1948, and that it desired to compensate the appellant for termination of the agency on the following basis: ( 1) "For the first three post-transfer years" the principal company shall pay to the appellant two-fifths of the commission accrued on actual sales in the territory of the latter's agency taken over the principal company, such commission to be computed at the commission rates formerly paid to the appellant; (2) That "in the third post-transfer year", the principal company shall pay the appellant in Shalt J. 1964 Gillander1 Arbu· thnot and Ct>. v. C.l.T Shah I. 124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1g64] addition a sum equivalent to full commission on the sales for that year effected by the principal company in the appellant's territory calculated at the same rates. ( 3) That payments would be made to the appellant after the end of each year as soon as the amount due was ascertained. Certain other matters in the letter which have a bearing on the dispute, may be reproduced: "For the purpose of calculating the commission due to you, the post-transfer will be deemed to run as from the date of the transfer of your agency to Imperial Chemical Industries (India) Ltd., We trust that you will find these proposals acceptable. As a condition of our paying you compensation on the basis outlined above, we would request you to be good enough to give us a formal undertaking to refrain from selling or accepting any agency for explosives or other commodities competitive with those covered by the agency agreement now being terminated. In this connection, we are asking our Legal Depart· ment to prepare a formal agreement which we will submit to you for signature as soon as possible." It is common ground that no ~ormal agreement in writing, which was contemplated to be taken from the appellant, was executed: not even a draft of the agreement was submitted by the principal company to the appellant. Pursuant to conditions (1) and (2) incorporated in the letter dated March 11, 194 7, which have been set out earlier, the appellant received the following amounts from the principal company· I ! 8 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 125 1964 For the previous year corresponding to the asscsment year ending 31st March, 1949. .. .... Rs. 1' 53'47l/II/- Gilland;;:;- Arbuthnot and Co. v. For the previous year corresponding to the assessment yrar ending 31st March, 1950. .. .... Ro. l,59,>71/4/- C.1.T. For the previous year corresponding to the assessment year ending 31st March, 1951 ...... Rs. 6,20,131/2/- These amounts were included in its profit & loss account by the appellant as commission received by it. But in the course of the proceedings for assessment to income-tax and Business Profits Tax, the appellant claimed that the amounts we:e compensation received on determination of the agency being receipts of a capital nature and were not liable to be included in the total income of the appellant. The Incometax Officer, Companies District IV, Calcutta, rejected the contention of the appellant, holding that cancellation of a single contract of agency out of a riumber of selling agencies held by the appellant was in the ordinary course of business and the sums received by the appellant as compensation for f ancellation were revenue, taxable under the Indian Incomet ax Act, 1922. The Income-tax Officer also assessed the l elevant amount of compensation to Business Profits tax for the chargeable accounting period ending March 31, 1949. In appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the contention of the appellant was accepted principally on the ground that the amounts received by the appellant were compensation for termination of the agency with the principal company and as consideration for agreeing to refrain from carrying on in future competitive business in explosives. The Appellate Tribunal held that the_ compensation received by the appellant was merely incidental to the carrying on of the business. The Tribunal negatived the contention of the appellant that the explosives agency was a separate business or that termination of that business amounted to loss of an enduring asset. The Tribunal also held that the covenant referred to in the letter dated March, 11, 194 7, about the appellant agreeing to refrain from carrying on a competitive business in explosives did not form cons~dera tion for the amount paid, because although proposed m the Shah J. 126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [rg64] ~ ldter dated March 11, 1947, there was no formal acceptance Gilland.,• Arbu- <>f the offer or an undertaking in writing given by the thnot and Co. appellant agreeing not to carry on a competitive business. v. C.1.T. 'Jn the view of the Tribunal the offer relating to the underShah 1. talcing not to carry ori a competitive business contained in the letter was not accepted, and. the amounts paid by the principal company could not therefore be regarded as forming consideration partially or wholly for acceptance of that offer. The Tribunal thereafter referred three questions under s. 66 ( 1 ) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 to the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta. These questions were: ( 1) Whether the assessee's agency of the Imperial Chemical Industries (Export) Ltd. was a separate business by itself, the closure of which resulted in the destruction of a capital asset of the assessee; (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the compensation sums received by the assessee from the Imperial Chemical Industries (Export) Ltd. are income chargeable in the hands of the assessee; and (3') Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case no part of the compensation money was received by the assessee on the condition not to carry on a competitive business in the same line of activity in explosives and as such no part of the money was in the nature of capital being exempt from Indian Income-tax levy? The High Court recorded answers to the question as follows: "Qu;:.;tion 1.-The assessee's agency of the Imperial Chemical Industries (Export) Ltd. was not a separate business by itself and th~ closure of this business did not result in the destruction of a capital asset of the assesee. 8 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 127 Question 2.-The amounts of compensation received !964 by the assessee from the Imperial Chemical Gilllin;;;;"Arbu· Industries (Export) Ltd. were income chargethnot and Co. v. able in the hands of the assessee. c.1. r. Question 3.-No part of the compensation money was received by the assessee on condition not to carry on a competitive business in explosives and consequently no part thereof was exempt from Indian Income-tax levy." With certificate of fitness granted by the High Court, these appeals have been preferred by the appellant. The principal question in dispute is whether the amount received by the appellant as compensation for loss of agency are of the nature of capital or revenue. It is necessary in the first instance to eliminate two subsidiary contentions raised by the appellant. It was urged that the amounts received by the appellant were in lieu of compensation for cancellation of the agency by the principal company, for Joss of goodwill of the appellant's business, and also in consideration of the appellant's agreeing not to carry on any competitive business in explosives or other commodities in which business was carried on by the appellant under the agency agreement. It cannot seriously be disputed that compensation paid for agreeing to refrain from carrying on competitive business in the commodities in respect of which the agency was terminated, or for loss of goodwill would, prima facie, be off the nature of a capital receipt. But there is no evidence that compensation was paid to the appellant as consideration for giving the undertaking not to carry on a competitive business, or as compensation for loss of goodwill. In the letter dated March 11, 194 7, it was expressly recited that as a condition of payment of compensation on the basis outlined therein the principal company had called upon the appellant to give a formal undertaking to refrain from selling or accepting any agency for explosives or other commodities competitive with those covered by the agency agreement, but no such formal undertakin~ was ever given. It was recited in the last paragraph of the letter that the prin· Shah/. 128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [rgp4J 1'6'1 cipal company will submit a fonnal agreement to the apGillandm Arbu- pellant for execution. But it appears that at the time of thnot and Co. payment of the compensation and thereafter also both sides cJ:T. ignored this condition. Payment of compensation was Shah J. spread over a period of three years, but that will not give· rise to an inference that the object behind the payment was. to enforce the undertaking, for the undertaking, if any, would have operated pennanently whereas full compensation was payable within three years. If importance was attached· to the undertaking the principal company would have declined to make even the first payment without insisting upon a fonnal agreement incorporating the undertaking. Whether the appellant did not in fact carry on any competitive business was never investigated, and the absence of evidence on that point may reasonably justify the inference that the appellant never attempted to establish that part of its case. Granting that an agreement to refrain from carrying on a competitive business may be implied from subsequent c.onduct, in the absence of any material at any stage of the proceedings before the Revenue authorities, it would be reasonable to hold that the .appellant did not place any reliance upon the case that part of the compensation was attributable to an undertaking not to engage in competitive business. No part of the compensation may be attributed to loss of goodwil! suffered by the appellant. It is true that the agency had continued in the hands of the predecessors of the_ appellant and thereafter with the appellant for upwards of sixty years. It was urged that an extensive market had been built up in India and the goodwill of that business was on termination of the appellant's agency taken over by the new agents of the principal company and compensation paid in _that behalf must be regarded as capital. But this question also was never raised before the Revenue authorities, nor even before the Tribunal. The Tribunal observed that it had not been supplied with "any material regarding the basis of the value of the goodwill, nor anything to indicate as to what the written down value of the goodwill was, due to the tennination of the agency". /- I S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 129 It therefore held that the inference sought to be drawn by 1964 the appellant that compensation was referable to the Joss Gilland;;;-A.rbuof goodwill, was based on no evidence and the High Court thnot •M Co. agreed with that conclusion. We are unable to hold that cir. the High Court was, in so holding in error. If it was the case of the appellant that a part of the compensation was in fact paid for loss of goodwill of the business, the appellant couid have led evidence to establish ~hat it was the intentioo of the parties that the loss ·of good will was to be compensated by payment of an amounit which was included in the compensation ultimately paid by the principal company to the appellant. The business of agency had undoubtedly continued for more than sixty years, but there is no evidence about the terms of the agency agreement. There was no written agreement, and it is common ground that tl1e agency was terminable at will. The principal company had, as early as 1945, informed the appellant that the distribution arrangement "would be terminated after two or three years". The appellant had sufficient notice of the proposed determination. Thereafter the agency was cancelled with effect from April 1, 1945, and in -the correspondence which is tendered in evidence, there is not even an indirect reference to any negotiation for payment of Compensation for loss of goodwill, or any agreement in that behalf. We may now address ourselves to the question, whether eompensation paid by the principal company for cancellation of the agency may be regarded as a capital or revenue receipt. We have in a recent case in Kettlewell Dullen & Co. v. The Commissioner of Income-tax;·· Calcutta ( 1) made a survey of the important cases which have arisen before the Courts in the United Kingdom and in India about the principles which govern the determination of the nature of compensation received on the termination of an agency. We , observed in that case: "On an analysis of these cases which fa!! on two sides of the dividing line, a satisfactory measure of consistency in principle is disclosed. Where ------ (1)( 1964] S.C.L· 93. SI S.C.-9 Sluih J. 1964 Gillandera Arb11thnot and Co. Y. C.1.T. s•11 1. 130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [rg64] on a consideration of the circumstances, payment is made to compensate a person for cancellation of a contract which does not affect the trading structure of his business, nor deprive him of what in substance is his source of income, termination of the contract being a normal incident of the business, and such cancellation leaves him free to carry on his trade (freed from the contract terminated) the receipt is revenue: where by the cancellation ef an agency the trading structure of the assessee is impaired, or such cancellation results in loss of what may be regarded as the source of the assessee's income, the payment made to compensate for cancellation of the agency agreement is normally a capital receipt." Examining the circumstances of the present case in the light of that principle, we agree with the High Court that what was received by the appellant was income and not capital. Compensation received by the appellant for cancellation of the agency which was terminable at will, the appellant was- to be paid an amount which was to be computed on the basis of the profits of the business. Under the letter dated March 11, 194 7, the appellant was to be paid "for the first three post-transfer years" two-fifths of the commission accrued on actual sales in the territory of the appellant's agency taken over by the Imperial Chemical Industries