https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382186 Concurrent findings that disputed payments were current adjustment entries or inter-corporate deposits, and not loans or advances, meant section 2(22)(e) was not attracted on those facts. The Revenue's appeal was therefore confined to the re-framed substantial question of law concerning the transaction with B.R. Laboratories Private Limited, and the other proposed question was held not to survive. The order thus narrows the controversy to one live issue for future adjudication. en-us Tue, 25 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 27 Jun 2019 07:39:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382186 Concurrent findings that disputed payments were current adjustment entries or inter-corporate deposits, and not loans or advances, meant section 2(22)(e) was not attracted on those facts. The Revenue's appeal was therefore confined to the re-framed substantial question of law concerning the transaction with B.R. Laboratories Private Limited, and the other proposed question was held not to survive. The order thus narrows the controversy to one live issue for future adjudication. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 25 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382186