The assessees claim that the sum of Rs.
Further he was to be paid Rs.
70,000/ was a lump sum companypensation received for the services rendered hence the same was a receipt in the ordinary companyrse of assessees business and companysequently it was taxable as a revenue receipt.
That companypensation was received by the assessee on June 11, 1954.
Shanti Parsad Jain transferred his rights under that agreement to a public limited companypany by name M s. Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd. on May 4, 1938.
Under that decree the assessee was to be paid Rs.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated January 4, 1967 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Income tax Reference No.
P. Malhotra, R. N. Sachthey and B. D. Sharma, for the appellant.
S. Desai and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the respondent L.R. No.2 .
For the services rendered by the assessee, the Dalmia Dadri Cement Co. by an agreement dated May 27, 1938 agreed, to pay him a companymission of 1 on the yearly net profits earned by the companypany from the said cement factory.
Thereafter at the instance of the Commissioner the question set out earlier was referred to the High Court for its opinion which, as mentioned earlier, was answered in favour of the assessee.
It is also number the case of the Revenue that the assessee was engaged in the business of bringing about agreements between parties.
That agreement was entered into on April 2, 1938.
It was number the case of the Revenue that the assessee was engaged in the business of discovering Kankar or any other mineral.
Aggrieved by that order the assessee took up the matter in appeal to the Tribunal.
We shall number refer to the material facts found by the Incometax Appellate Tribunal as can be gathered from the case stated.
The assessee was assessed as an individual.
The same was to remain operative for a period of 25 years, which term was liable to be extended to 100 years at the option of the said Shanti Parsad Jain or his numberinee.
15,000/ as companymission for the year 1953.
70,000/ by way of companypensation for the termination of the agreement between him and the companypany as from January 1, 1954.
Consequently the assessee filed a suit against the companypany claiming the companymission due to him.
The question referred to the High Court for its opinion was Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the receipt of Rs.
The assessee was one of the promoters of the said companypany.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
That agreement was to subsist so long as the original agreement dated April 2, 1938 subsisted.
He appears to have found Kankar by mere chance.
The said suit ended in a companypromise and the companypromise was made a decree of companyrt.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde, J. This is an appeal by certificate from the decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in a Reference under s. 66 1 of the Indian Income tax Act, 1922 to be hereinafter referred to as the Act .
This decision was affirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who held that the amount of Rs.
The relevant assessment year is 1955 56, the accounting period for the same ended on Asad sudi 1, S.Y. 201 1.
Aggrieved by that decision the Commissioner of Income tax came up in appeal to this Court.
70,000/ by the assessee on 11 6 1954 was revenue or capital in nature.
1693 of 1968.
He also brought about an agreement between one Shanti Parsad Jain and the erstwhile State of Jind, number a part of Punjab State for the acquisition of sole and exclusive monopoly rights of manufacturing cement in the said Jind State.
70,000/ was a remuneration paid once and for all for the services rendered by the assessee and as such taxable in his hands.
The assessee was instrumental in discovering the existence of Kankar deposits in Jind State.
44 of 1962.
15,000/ as companymission for the years 1951 and 1952 and Rs.
70,000/ was capital receipt and hence number taxable in his hands was rejected by the Income tax Officer.
That officer held that the said sum of Rs.
