https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791922 Security deposits and retention money deducted from contractors' running bills were treated as genuine trade liabilities arising from regular contractual transactions, not unexplained cash credits, because the records showed opening balances, corresponding debits and credits, release of deposits during the year, and identifiable contractors and vendors; the addition under section 68 and consequential taxation under section 115BBE were deleted. On the procedural point, the Commissioner (Appeals) did not admit new third-party evidence, as the materials consisted of ledger extracts, summaries and explanations already borne out by the assessment record, so no violation of Rule 46A was established. The Revenue's appeal failed in full. en-us Mon, 20 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 May 2026 08:31:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791922 Security deposits and retention money deducted from contractors' running bills were treated as genuine trade liabilities arising from regular contractual transactions, not unexplained cash credits, because the records showed opening balances, corresponding debits and credits, release of deposits during the year, and identifiable contractors and vendors; the addition under section 68 and consequential taxation under section 115BBE were deleted. On the procedural point, the Commissioner (Appeals) did not admit new third-party evidence, as the materials consisted of ledger extracts, summaries and explanations already borne out by the assessment record, so no violation of Rule 46A was established. The Revenue's appeal failed in full. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 20 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791922