The delay in supply could be of the whole plant or a part thereof but the determination of damages was not based upon the calculation made in respect of loss of profit on account of supply of a particular part of the plant. It is evident that the damages to the assessee was directly and intimately linked with the procurement of a capital asset i.e. the cement plant, which would obviously lead to delay in coming into existence of the profit making apparatus, rather than a receipt in the course of profit earning process. Compensation paid for the delay in procurement of capital asset amounted to sterilization of the capital asset of the assessee as supplier had failed to supply the plant within time as stipulated in the agreement and clause No.6 thereof came into play. The amount received by the assessee towards compensation for sterilization of the profit-earning source, not in the ordinary course of their business, was a capital receipt in the hands of the assessee. The amount received by the assessee from the suppliers of the plant was in the nature of a capital receipt. Appeal dismissed.
