COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ASSAM ETC. vs. THE PANBARI TEA CO. LTD.

CIVIL APPEAL No. 150/1964Supreme Court[1965] 3 S.C.R. 81119 April 1965Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: K. SUBBA RAO, J.C. SHAH, S.M. SIKRI B7 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee, The Panbari Tea Co. Ltd., leased out its tea estates for ten years. The lease agreement stipulated a premium of Rs. 2,25,000, payable partly at execution and the balance in instalments, and an annual rent of Rs. 54,000. The Income Tax Officer treated an instalment of premium received as a revenue receipt for assessment year 1952-53. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal confirmed this view. The assessee referred the matter to the High Court, which held the sum to be a capital receipt. The Revenue appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the sum of Rs. 11,250 received by the assessee was a capital receipt. The Court reiterated the distinction between premium (salami) and rent: premium is a single payment for acquiring the right to enjoy benefits under a lease, considered a capital income, while rent is a periodical payment for continuous enjoyment, considered a revenue receipt. The Court emphasized that the substance of the transaction, not just the nomenclature, is decisive. It found no material to suggest the parties camouflaged rent as premium. The fact that premium was paid in instalments was to accommodate the lessee, not to alter its capital nature. Clause 8 of the lease deed, concerning default, was interpreted in the context of the main terms and did not override the character of the premium as a capital receipt. The argument based on profit comparison was unsubstantiated due to lack of agreed data. Therefore, the High Court's decision was upheld.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and upon the construction of the terms of the lease dated March 31, 1950, the sum of Rs. 11,250 received by the assessee during the year of account is a revenue or capital receipt? (Question of mixed law and fact, turning on the interpretation of the lease deed and the distinction between premium and rent under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922). Assessee's Contentions: The High Court correctly held the sum to be a capital receipt. The lease deed clearly distinguished between premium and rent, and the parties, being businessmen, intended them to be distinct. The premium was consideration for being let into possession, not periodical payment for enjoyment. Revenue's Contentions: The sum described as premium was, in substance, rent and therefore a revenue receipt. The payment of premium in instalments, the default clause in the lease deed, and the comparison of profits before and after the lease suggested that the premium was a camouflaged form of rent. The Revenue relied on the interpretation of Clause 8 of the lease deed regarding default.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 66(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

A B c D E F G H COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ASSAM ETC. v. THE PANBARI TEA CO. LTD.

April 19, 1965 [K. SUBBA RAO, J. C. SHAH AND S. M. SIKRI, JJ.J Indian Income-tax Act (11 of 1922)-"Premium" and "rent"- Distinction-Premium paid in instalments-Whether caPitai gains or revenue receipts.

The assessee leased out its tea estates for a period of ten years in consideration of a sum as and by way of premium and an annual rent to be paid by the lessor to the assessee. As premium a part of the sum was paid at the time of the execution of the lease and the balance was spread over in ten annual instalments; and the annual rent was payable in monthly instalments. The annual instalment paid as premium was taxed by the Income Tax authorities as re- venue receipt of the assessee. On reference, the High Court held it to be capital gains. In appeal by certificate. HELD: The annual instalmeni paid as premium was capital gains.

When the interest of the lessor is parted for a price the price paid is premium or salami. But the periodical payments made for the con- tinuous enjoyment of the benefits under the lease are in the nature (,f rent. The former is a capital income and

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 →