https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194439 Amounts advanced by the respondent to her husband were characterised as deposits, not loans, because the account books and surrounding circumstances showed they were intended as business capital with no immediate obligation to repay. The distinction turned on the repayment obligation: a loan is ordinarily repayable at once, while a deposit becomes repayable only on demand or at maturity. On that basis, the claim fell within the limitation rule applicable to deposits and was not time-barred. The decree in favour of the respondent was upheld. en-us Thu, 03 Dec 1964 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Sep 2017 17:48:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194439 Amounts advanced by the respondent to her husband were characterised as deposits, not loans, because the account books and surrounding circumstances showed they were intended as business capital with no immediate obligation to repay. The distinction turned on the repayment obligation: a loan is ordinarily repayable at once, while a deposit becomes repayable only on demand or at maturity. On that basis, the claim fell within the limitation rule applicable to deposits and was not time-barred. The decree in favour of the respondent was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 03 Dec 1964 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194439