Dismissing the appeal of the Revenue the Court held that the advance which were in nature of commercial transactions would not fall within ambit of word advance in section 2(22)(e) of the Act.
PCIT v. Dwarka Prasad Aggarwal (2022) 140 taxmann.com 32 (Delhi)(HC) Editorial : SLP dismissed as with drawn due to low tax effect, PCIT v. Dwarka Prasad Aggarwal (2022) 288 Taxman 16 (SC)
S. 2(22)(e) : Deemed dividend-Trade advances-Security by way of mortgage-Deletion of addition is justified. [S. 132, 153A]