https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66216 An amount collected under a subsisting judicial permission, but separately earmarked in a deposit account and linked to individual payers, was treated as a repayable liability rather than the collector's trading receipt. The decisive factors were the express direction to preserve the excess collection pending proceedings, the maintenance of identifiable records for possible repayment, and the statutory framework contemplating recovery of excess collections and consequences for breach. On those facts, the amount did not form part of the collector's circulating capital or an unconditional accrual to profit, and authorities treating unsegregated collections as trading receipts were distinguished. en-us Thu, 06 Sep 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Feb 2011 15:24:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66216 An amount collected under a subsisting judicial permission, but separately earmarked in a deposit account and linked to individual payers, was treated as a repayable liability rather than the collector's trading receipt. The decisive factors were the express direction to preserve the excess collection pending proceedings, the maintenance of identifiable records for possible repayment, and the statutory framework contemplating recovery of excess collections and consequences for breach. On those facts, the amount did not form part of the collector's circulating capital or an unconditional accrual to profit, and authorities treating unsegregated collections as trading receipts were distinguished. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 06 Sep 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66216