https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295180 The High Court dismissed the appeal due to a delay of 210 days in refiling, deeming the reasons provided unsatisfactory. The Court upheld the ITAT's interpretation that Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act did not apply, as the transactions were not considered advances but trade credits to third parties. Citing precedent, the Court ruled that the amounts could not be deemed a loan to a shareholder as per the provision's text, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as no substantial question of law emerged. en-us Mon, 19 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 22 May 2021 08:24:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295180 The High Court dismissed the appeal due to a delay of 210 days in refiling, deeming the reasons provided unsatisfactory. The Court upheld the ITAT's interpretation that Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act did not apply, as the transactions were not considered advances but trade credits to third parties. Citing precedent, the Court ruled that the amounts could not be deemed a loan to a shareholder as per the provision's text, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as no substantial question of law emerged. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 19 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295180