COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXCESS PROFITS TAX BOMBAY CITY BOMBAY Vs. SHAMSHER PRINTING PRESS BOMBAY
LAWS(SC)-1960-3-37
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on March 08,1960

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,EXCESS PROFITS TAX,BOMBAY CITY Appellant
VERSUS
SHAMSHER PRINTING PRESS,BOMBAY Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

VAN DEN BERGHS LTD.,V. CLARK [REFERRED]



Cited Judgements :-

SENAIRAM DOONGARMALL VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ASSAM [LAWS(SC)-1961-3-25] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. CHAMBER OF COLOURS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-1969-12-5] [REFERRED]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. ALL INDIA FILMS CORPN [LAWS(DLH)-2007-10-280] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL VS. ROHTAS INDUSTRIES LTD [LAWS(CAL)-1978-2-48] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. ASRAFI DEVI RAJGHARIA [LAWS(CAL)-1980-9-24] [REFERRED TO]
NAWN ESTATES PVT LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(CAL)-1981-1-21] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX POONA VS. MANNA RAMJI AND CO [LAWS(SC)-1972-8-27] [FOLLOWED]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BOMBAY VS. BOMBAY BURMAH TRADING CORPN BOMBAY [LAWS(SC)-1986-7-35] [CITED]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. VOYANTIZIES J [LAWS(BOM)-1972-10-9] [REFERRED TO]
DATTATRAYA DAGDOBA DHOLE VS. SHAIKH JAVED HUSEN HAJRAT SAHEB [LAWS(BOM)-2009-3-156] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. NEBA RAM HANSRAJ [LAWS(PAT)-1996-8-74] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Sarkar, J. - (1.)The question raised is whether a certain sum received by the respondent was a capital receipt or a revenue receipt.
(2.)The respondent was a firm carrying on a business of purchasing and selling paper, stationary and other things and manufacturing books, exercise books, diaries etc. and for the purpose of its business it had a printing press. The business was carried on and the press housed, in a building belonging to its partners where the latter also resided. This building was requisitioned by the Government in September 1943 for the duration of the war. The respondent had thereupon to shift its business to another place where it was restarted sometime later. The respondent claimed compensation for the requisition on various accounts and was paid various sums. One of the claims was made in these words:"On account of the compulsory vacation of the premises disturbance and loss of business on the basis of two years at Rs. 2,29,450/- per annum.....Rs. 4,58,900." On this head the Government paid Rs. 57,435/-.
(3.)The question is whether this sum of Rs. 57,435/- was liable to income-tax and excess profits-tax. It would be liable if it was a revenue receipt and not, if it was a capital receipt. It was, no doubt, paid in respect of some injury suffered by the respondent on account of the requisition. If that injury was to the respondent's capital assets then the receipt would be a capital receipt. If, on the other hand, the injury was to the respondent's trading, then it would be a revenue receipt.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.