Case: Commissioner of Income Tax/Excess Profits Tax, Bombay City Vs. Shamsher Printing Press

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.

Reasoning:
5. It is not disputed on behalf of the Department that such a goodwill would be a capital asset. The Department contends that there was no claim for injury to any such goodwill. It says, we think rightly, that goodwill is a question of fact. It may exist, it may not exist: see Hill v. Fearis, (1905) 1 Ch 466. The department does not contend that the existence of the goodwill had to be proved.What it says is that since it does not follow that every business has a goodwill, a loss to such goodwill has at least to be claimed and in the absence of such a claim it would follow that there was no such goodwill and nothing could therefore have been paid in respect of it.This seems to us to be an argument of substance and we did not understand learned counsel for the respondent to contend to the contrary. What he said was that there was a claim for a loss to the goodwill.6. We turn now to the words in which the claim was made which we have earlier set out. There is no mention of any loss to goodwill there. It is said on behalf of the respondent that the claim was for "compulsory vacation of the premises and also for "disturbance and loss of business and that the claim for "compulsory vacation of the premises" was for the injury to the goodwill. That indeed would be a strange way of making a claim for loss of goodwill. There is a claim for loss of business in express terms and this was computed at two years loss of profits. Why was loss of business claimed? Clearly, because the business would be stopped or disturbed for some time by the compulsory vacation of the premises. That would make the claim as framed sensible. It would then be a claim for one thing only, namely, for loss of profits. The Department says that that is all that was claimed. It is difficult to hold that the claim so framed was, as the respondent contends, for three things, namely, (a) compulsory vacation of premises, (b) disturbance of business and (c) loss of business. If three things were claimed all could not have been together computed by one measure of two years loss of profit as was done. The claim for loss of business would have been without any particulars as to how the loss was said to have been occasioned and this could thirdly have been intended. It is reasonable to think that the compulsory vacation of the premises was mentioned as explaining how the disturbance and loss of business had been occasioned for which a claim had admittedly been made.We do not think that the Tribunal came to any contrary finding. It, no doubt, said "Really speaking the payment is on account of the compulsory vacation of the premises". That does not show that the Tribunal thought that the payment was on account of loss of goodwill. This observation was made because the Tribunal found that it had not been proved that the respondent had actually suffered and loss. No question of actual proof of loss arose for making the claim.We think we ought to refer to another part of the respondents letter earlier mentioned, to which our attention was drawn. There it is statedwe think of our competitors in the open market who would go far ahead on account of our absence we feel we shall have a strong uphill struggle whilstourselves when we have reached the normal stage ofis said this shows that the respondent was claiming for loss of goodwill. That seems to us quite untenable a contention. No goodwill is referred to. All that is said here is that competitors would go ahead while the respondents business remained stopped. Now that has nothing to do with loss of goodwill. It is only concerned with the stoppage of the respondents business irrespective of its removal from one premises to another. Further, this statement was not in connection with any claim actually made. It could only, if at all, be taken as referring to claim for loss of profits. We, therefore, do not think that this portion of the respondents letter helps it.10. It seems to us for the reasons aforesaid that the sum of Rs. 57,435/had not been received by the respondent for any injury to any of its capital assets. In our view, the sum was received as compensation for loss of profits for the period during which, it was imagined, the respondents business would remain stopped before it could be restarted at a new premises. That being so, it was clearly a revenue receipt, it has not been disputed that if the amount in question was paid as compensation for loss of profit, it would be a revenue receipt and liable to tax. As it was a trading receipt it cannot be held exempt from tax under S. 4(3)(vii) of theAct either. In the result we answer both the questions framed in this case in the negative.11. This appeal is therefore allowed with costs.