COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX POONA vs. M/S. MANNA RAMJI & CO.

CIVIL APPEAL No. 156/1969Supreme Court[1973] 1 S.C.R. 106829 August 1972Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: K.S. HEGDE, P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, HANS RAJ KHANNA COMMISSIONER OF9 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s. Manna Ramji & Co., a timber business, had its premises requisitioned by the Government under the Defence of India Act in 1944. While the sheds were fully requisitioned, the assessee was allowed to retain possession of the office room and continued its business. The assessee claimed compensation for loss of earnings, which was awarded by an arbitrator as a lump sum of Rs. 1,25,500. The Income Tax Officer treated Rs. 1,05,074 (after deducting certain expenses) of this amount as a revenue receipt taxable as business income. The Appellant Assistant Commissioner held it to be a capital receipt. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, however, held it to be a revenue receipt. The High Court answered the reference in favour of the assessee. The Revenue appealed to the Supreme Court.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the compensation amount of Rs. 1,05,074 partakes of the character of profits and is therefore a revenue receipt. The Court reasoned that the compensation was claimed and awarded for loss of profits, the assessee continued the business in its usual name and style in the same office premises, and the profit-making apparatus itself was not destroyed. The Court distinguished the case from Glenboig Union Fireclay Co. Ltd. by noting that there was no sterilization or destruction of a capital asset. Requisition was temporary, unlike permanent deprivation. The method of computing compensation does not alter its essential nature. The Court found no similarity with the facts in S. R. Y. Sivaram Prasad Bahadur and Prabhu Dayal. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and answered the question in favour of the department, holding the sum taxable as income. The Court left the parties to bear their own costs.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 1,05,074 received by the assessee as compensation from the Government is taxable as income or is a capital receipt in its hands, turning on the character of the receipt in relation to the assessee's business and the nature of the deprivation of the premises. Assessee's contentions (as inferred from the High Court's decision and the Supreme Court's analysis): The compensation received for loss of earnings due to requisitioned premises should be treated as a capital receipt, as it represents a loss of potential capital, not a revenue stream. The method of computation, even if based on past profits, does not alter the capital nature of the receipt. Reliance was placed on cases like The Glenboig Union Fireclay Co. Ltd., S. R. Y. Sivaram Prasad Bahadur, and Prabhu Dayal. Revenue's contentions (as inferred from the Supreme Court's decision): The compensation for loss of earnings, where the profit-making apparatus remains intact and the business continues, partakes of the character of profits and is therefore a revenue receipt. Requisition is temporary, and the compensation represents profits that would have been earned but for the requisition. Reliance was placed on Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City v. Shamsher Printing Press.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 66(1),Section 10

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1068 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME·TAX POONA v. MJS. MANNA RAMii & CO.

August 29, 1972 (K. S. HEGDE, P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND H. R. KHANNA, JJ.] · Indian Income Tax, 1911-Capltal Receipt/I and Revenue Receipts- Compensation paid by .Govt. for lolls of earning where the business pre- mises ate fequisitioned-Whether Revenue Receiptr.

The respondent 'Yas carrying on timber business in premises consisting Jf oflk~ r<Jl)m ·and six sheds.

In 1944, the premises were requisitioned mder the ~fence of India Act for storing food grains. On request of the respondent, however, the office roon was relea5ed wherein the ap- J>eilant contimied to carry on the timber business. The respondent claimed compensation of Rs. 1,25,500 for loss of earnings which was awarded. The Income Tax Officer brought to tax the said amounf attributing the earning to business of timber, as rev.enue receipts.

On responderit's motion, the following questlion was referred to the High Court by t,he Income Tax Ap- pellAte Tribunal : "whether, on facts and circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 1,05,074 received by the applicant as compensation from the Government is taxable as income of the applicant or is a cap

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.

More judgments on Section 66(1)

All 184 judgments and leading authorities on Section 66(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →