https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30761 The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to treat the contingent deposit amount as income for the appellant, emphasizing that labeling it as a deposit did not change its nature as part of income. The court ruled in favor of the Revenue, stating that collections for statutory liabilities like sales tax constitute trading receipts, even if labeled as deposits. The appellant's argument that the contingent liability attached to the deposit should exclude it from trading receipts was dismissed, and the court concluded that the amount held in deposit was a revenue receipt for the appellant. en-us Tue, 30 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30761 The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to treat the contingent deposit amount as income for the appellant, emphasizing that labeling it as a deposit did not change its nature as part of income. The court ruled in favor of the Revenue, stating that collections for statutory liabilities like sales tax constitute trading receipts, even if labeled as deposits. The appellant's argument that the contingent liability attached to the deposit should exclude it from trading receipts was dismissed, and the court concluded that the amount held in deposit was a revenue receipt for the appellant. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 30 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30761