https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9057 Amounts received as a security deposit under the contract remained a liability at the time of receipt because the deposit secured faithful performance and had no link to price or realisations, so it was not a trading receipt. The amount described as an advance was likewise treated as borrowed money rather than an advance of the assessee's share of realisations, since it functioned as loan-like financing repayable directly or by adjustment against realised amounts. The expiry of limitation did not convert either subsisting liability into income, because limitation bars the remedy but does not extinguish the debt. The receipts were therefore capital in nature and not taxable revenue receipts. en-us Wed, 08 Aug 1973 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Jun 2009 19:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9057 Amounts received as a security deposit under the contract remained a liability at the time of receipt because the deposit secured faithful performance and had no link to price or realisations, so it was not a trading receipt. The amount described as an advance was likewise treated as borrowed money rather than an advance of the assessee's share of realisations, since it functioned as loan-like financing repayable directly or by adjustment against realised amounts. The expiry of limitation did not convert either subsisting liability into income, because limitation bars the remedy but does not extinguish the debt. The receipts were therefore capital in nature and not taxable revenue receipts. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 08 Aug 1973 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9057