The distinction between a capital receipt and a revenue receipt for the purpose of income tax is that capital is repaid in installments and is not liable to income tax, while an annuity payable for a definite or definable period, periodical payments that are a share of profits or royalties, or a percentage of gross profits are income and taxable.

Headnote:
INCOME TAX - Assessment year 1946-47 - Deed of assignment - Whether the sum of Rs. 77,820 represented a receipt of a revenue nature in the hands of the applicant and assessable as such.
Fact of the Case:

The appellants, National Cement Mines Industries Ltd., had obtained three leases for mining limestone and surface rights. They conveyed the rights and options under the leases to the Associated Cement Ltd. (ACL) by a deed dated May 7, 1935, for a present consideration of Rs. 25,000 and further payments under several covenants. The Income-tax Officer included the amount received by the appellants from ACL under the first covenant of the deed, being Rs. 77,820, in the total assessable income of the appellants for the assessment year 1946-47. The Tribunal upheld the order, and the High Court referred the question of whether the sum represented a revenue receipt to the Supreme Court.
Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court held that the transaction dated May 7, 1935, was a commercial transaction and the payment under clause (1) thereof at the rate of 0.13 As per ton of cement sold was of the nature of income and not capital.
Issues: Whether the sum of Rs. 77,820 received by the appellants from ACL under the first covenant of the deed dated May 7, 1935, represented a revenue receipt and was assessable as such.
Ratio Decidendi: The court distinguished the present case from cases where property is sold and the price is agreed to be paid in installments, holding that in such cases, the installments are not liable to income tax. However, where property is conveyed in consideration of what is in truth an annuity payable for a definite or definable period, the annuity is not payment on capital account and is taxable. The court also distinguished the case from cases where property is conveyed in consideration of periodical payments that are a share of profits of a business or profession, a mineral royalty, or a percentage of gross profits made in the exploitation of a secret process, holding that such payments are income and taxable.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Judgment

SHAH, J. : M/s. National Cement Mines Industries Ltd.- hereinafter referred to as the appellants - are a public limited company incorporated to "carry on the businesses of cement and lime manufacture and also of limestone supply and for the purposes of such business to acquire rights and concessions pertaining to limestone, coal and surface lands from the Dewarkhand Karanpura Mines and Industries Ltd." and also to "work mines or quarries and to find, win, get, work, etc. or otherwise deal with clay and bauxite".

2. Dewarkhand Karanpura Mines and Industries Ltd. - hereinafter called the "Karanpura Company" had obtained three leases on November 29, 1930, first for mining limestone from Maharaja Pratap Narain Udai Nath Shah Deo from limestone beds in certain villages in Dewarkhand, second from Maharaj Kumar Nand Kishore Nath Shah Deo of the surface rights necessary to exercise the powers and privileges in respect of the first lease and the third from Maharaj Kumar Raj Kishore Nath Shah Deo of surface rights in respect of Hoyer village. The period in each of the three leases was thirty years. On March 17, 1932, the Karanpura Company conveyed the rights and options under the three leases to the appellants. On September 30, 1934, the appellants acquired the limestone and surface rights in respect of limestone beds in village Umedanda for 95 years from Maharaja Pratap Narain Uday Nath Shah Deo and Maharaj Kumar Raj Kishore Nath Shah Deo. On the same date, the appellants entered into two agreements, one with Maharaja Pratap Narain Uday Nath Shah Deo which is called the "bauxite option agreement" thereby acquiring the first option to take a lease or leases of any area or areas of bauxite deposits in certain villages, and another from the said Maharaja for the first option to take a lease or leases of limestone beds in the Tori District. By a fourth agreement also dated September 30, 1934, between the Karanpura Company, Maharaja Pratap Narain Udai Nath Shah Deo acting with the consent of Maharaj Kumar Raj Kishore Nath Shah Deo and Nand Kishore Nath Shah Deo, the royalties reserved under the original deeds dated November 29,1930, were reduced and the periods of the leases were extended to 99 years from the date of the original leases.

3. By deed dated May 7, 1935, the appellants conveyed to Dewarkhand Cement Company Ltd. (which later came to be known as Associated Cement Ltd. and will be referred to hereinafter by that name) the benefits of the four leases and the two agreements for the unexpired periods. By this deed, for a present consideration of Rs. 25,000 "for trouble and expenses in obtaining the leases and agreements" and for further payment under several covenants which will be presently set out, the appellants conveyed the rights vested in them subject to certain reservations. In the year of account June 1, 1944 to May 31, 1945, the appellants received from the Associated Cement Ltd. under the first covenant of the deed, Rs. 77,820 being the amount computed at the rate of 0-13 As per ton of cement manufactured from limestone won from the lands and sold by the company. The Income-tax Officer, Companies District I, Calcutta, included this amount in the total assessable income of the appellants in the assessment year 1946-47. This order was confirmed in appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. At the instance of the appellants, the Tribunal referred the following question with another not material for this appeal to the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta:

"Whether on a proper construction of the Deed of Assignment dated 7th of May, 1935, and on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 77,820 represented a receipt of a revenue nature in the hands of the applicant and assessable as such?"

4. The following facts were held proved by the Tribunal. The principal objects of incorporation of the appellants were to carry on th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1961 Supreme(SC) 19

Cases Referred (4)