OBEROI HOTEL PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

CIVIL APPEAL No. 7418/1994Supreme Court[1999] 1 S.C.R. 95510 March 1999Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: S.P. BHARUCHA, M.B. SHAH, N. SANTOSH HEGDE OBEROI HOTEL PVT. LTD. A8 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the compensation received by the assessee was a capital receipt. The Court reasoned that the assessee gave up its right to purchase and/or operate the hotel, which constituted a loss of a source of income. This was not a settlement of rights under a trading contract but an injury inflicted on the assessee's capital asset. The Court distinguished this from cases where termination of an agency is a normal incident of business and does not impair the business's profit-making structure. The Court relied on the principle that if the cancellation of an agency agreement results in the loss of what can be regarded as the source of the assessee's income, the payment is normally a capital receipt. The High Court's order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, answering the question in favour of the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Oberoi Hotel Pvt. Ltd., operated hotels belonging to others for a management fee. An agreement for operating Hotel Oberoi Imperial, Singapore, provided for a term, renewal options, and a right for the assessee to purchase the hotel if the owner wished to transfer it. A supplemental agreement was executed, where the assessee gave up its right to purchase the hotel. This entitled the assessee to receive compensation upon the hotel's sale during the original agreement's currency. The assessee received compensation after the hotel was sold. The Income Tax Officer treated this compensation as a revenue receipt, but the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held it to be a capital receipt. The High Court reversed this, deeming it a revenue receipt, leading to the present appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the receipt of Rs. 29,47,500 by the assessee from the Receiver or the hotel in the course of the assessee's hotel operation business, is a capital receipt (Section 28(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that giving up the right to purchase and operate the hotel resulted in the loss of a source of income, making the compensation a capital receipt. They relied on the principle that compensation for the loss of an asset of enduring value is a capital receipt. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue contended that the amount received was for the termination of a contract, which should be considered a revenue receipt. They relied on the decision in CIT v. Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji, arguing that compensation for the termination of a contract, especially when the assessee has multiple businesses, is revenue in nature.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 28(ii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cited by 42 judgments on BharatTax

See all citing judgments →

Counted from the text of the judgments hosted here. Most recent first.

~ OBEROI HOTEL PVT. LTD. A v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MARCH 10, 1999 [S.P. BHARUCHA, M.B. SHAH AND B N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.)

Income Tax Act, 1961 : Section 28(ii).

Compensation-For tem1inatio11 of agreement-Capital or revenue c receipt--Detemiination of-AY 1979-8()-Assessee operated a hotel belonging to others for a manageme11t fee calculated on the basis of gross profits-Agree- ment between the assessee a11d the ow11er of the hotel provided for con- ti11uance of arra11gement for a certain period--Assessee also had the right to -" opt for its purchase in case the owner desired to tr an sf er the same during the D said period-Subsequently by a supplemental agreement assessee gave up its .... right to purchase the hotel, thus entitling it to receive a certain amount of ...0 compensation in the event of the hotel being sold by its owner during the currency of earlier agreement-Held, giving up the right to purchase the hotel resulted in loss of assessee's source of income--Hence, amount of compen- satio11 received by assessee pursuant to supplemental agreement is a capital E receipt and not a revenue receipt.

The appellant-assessee was operating, managing and a

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →