THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, HYDERABAD-DECCAN vs. MESSRS. VAZIR SULTAN & SONS
What did the Supreme Court hold?
By a majority decision (Bhagwati and Sinha, JJ., with Kapur, J. dissenting), the Tribunal held that the agency agreements constituted a capital asset, the profit-making apparatus of the assessee's business of distribution. Consequently, compensation for terminating the agency was a capital receipt. The fact that the agreements were terminable at will or that only a part of the agency was terminated did not alter this conclusion, as it resulted in the sterilization of the capital asset pro tanto. The majority relied on Commissioner of Income-tax v. Shaw Wallace & Co. and Glenboig Union Fire-Clay Co., Ltd. v. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue. Kapur, J. dissented, viewing the compensation as revenue because the assessee did not lose its agency entirely and the termination did not affect its trading activities, considering it compensation for loss of future profit and commission, akin to a surrogatum. The appeal was allowed.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a registered firm, was appointed the sole selling agent and distributor for Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co., Ltd. cigarettes in Hyderabad State in 1931. In 1939, the agency was expanded to cover the rest of India. By a resolution dated June 16, 1950, the 1939 agency was terminated, with the assessee receiving Rs. 2,26,263 as compensation. However, the assessee continued as distributor for Hyderabad State. For assessment year 1951-52, the Income-tax Officer treated Rs. 2,19,343 of this compensation as a revenue receipt. The assessee contended it was a capital receipt for the sterilization of a capital asset.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the sum of Rs. 2,19,343 received by the assessee as compensation for the termination of its agency outside Hyderabad State is a capital receipt or a revenue receipt, turning on the interpretation of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. Assessee's contentions: The agency acquired in 1931 was a capital asset. The expansion in 1939 was an accretion to this asset. The 1950 resolution terminated the agency qua territory outside Hyderabad, sterilizing the capital asset pro tanto. The compensation received was for this sterilization and thus a capital receipt, not liable to tax. Revenue's contentions: The expansion and restriction of territory were in the ordinary course of business. The structure of the profit-making apparatus was not affected. The compensation was for the restriction of territory and was a trading or income receipt, hence taxable. The agency agreement was terminable at will and thus not an enduring asset.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
' (2) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 375 executed, the amount realised by the execution by the I959 Collector has to be taken into account.
When the Ada·r 1 Subordinate Judge, Purnea, has to decide the question Collector'. '°;:nares whether the application for execution made to him is v. in continuance of an existing execution proceeding, he Maharaj has to recognise the proceeding before the Additional Kishore Khanna Collector, Banares, as a proceeding in execution under the Code for it is so under the Act. In doing this, for Sarkar ]. the reasons earlier mentioned, he would not be giving any extra-territorial operation _to the Act. It seems to us therefore that the execution of the decree by the Collector must be deemed to be execution of a decree for all purposes and therefore an application l)'.lade to the Subordinate Judge, Purnea, for execution of the same decree while an execution proceeding was pend- ing before the Collector, must be a continuation of the r oo:ecution last mentioned.
No question of limitation can arise in regard to such an application.
We think therefore that this appeal must succeed.
We set aside the order of the High Court and r
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.
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 →- Chandan Kumar Bathual vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Cuttack-Iii Range, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Manoranjan Sadangi vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Gopalpur Range, GanjamOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Bijaya Kumar Parekh vs. State Tax Officer, CT And GST Balangir Circle, BalangirOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Puspanjali Bhuyan vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S A2Z Infra Engineering LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
