https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39704 A forfeited security deposit given in the course of a rice purchase contract was treated as a trading loss because the liability became present and ascertained when forfeiture was intimated, and the pendency of litigation did not defer accrual under the mercantile system. The later recovery of any such amount would fall to be dealt with under the provision governing remission or cessation of liability. On the share-sale issue, the Tribunal's factual finding that the shares were acquired as a capital investment, and not as part of an adventure in the nature of trade, supported treatment of the surplus as capital gain rather than business income. en-us Tue, 11 Dec 1973 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 19 Apr 2010 17:30:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39704 A forfeited security deposit given in the course of a rice purchase contract was treated as a trading loss because the liability became present and ascertained when forfeiture was intimated, and the pendency of litigation did not defer accrual under the mercantile system. The later recovery of any such amount would fall to be dealt with under the provision governing remission or cessation of liability. On the share-sale issue, the Tribunal's factual finding that the shares were acquired as a capital investment, and not as part of an adventure in the nature of trade, supported treatment of the surplus as capital gain rather than business income. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 11 Dec 1973 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39704