This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
Section 2(22)(e) – ‘Trade Advances’ are Not ‘Loans and Advances’ – Delhi High Court
Case Law Details
- Case Name
- Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Arvind Kumar Jain (New Delhi High Court)
- Appeal Number
- Only available for paid members
- Date of Judgement/Order
- Only available for paid members
- Courts
- All High Courts, Delhi High Court
Upgrade to Basic or Premium to download.
Already Upgraded? Log in.
CIT vs. Arvind Kumar Jain (Delhi High Court)- Trade advance which are in the nature of money transacted to give effect to a commercial transactions would not, in our view, fall within the ambit of the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. This interpretation would allow the rule of purposive construction with noscitur a sociis, as was done by the Supreme Court in the case of LIC of India v. Retd. LIC Officers Assn. [2008] 3 SCC 321.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ITA No. 589 OF 2011
Judgement Reserved On: 19.09.2011
Judgement Delivered On:30.09.2011
Commissioner of Income Tax ...
what procedure to be adopted for regular dishonor of Chqs issued by Ltd company to a firm