Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Raj Kumar Agarwal [Alongwith Ita No. ... on 3 March, 2006
―Without prejudice to this, even the allegation of the AO
that trading transaction like refund of margin money and
buying and selling of shares as in the instant case are
covered in the mischief of section 2(22)(e) of the Act is not
tenable in the eyes of law. First of all, the question
whether trading advance or trading transaction constitute
loan or advance, an essential ingredient to cover a
ITA No.462 of 2009 & Ors. Page 40 of 50
transaction within section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act, was
considered by the Hon'ble High Court, Delhi in the case of
CIT Vs. Raj Kumar ITA No.1130/2007 judgment delivered
on 14.05.2009 and CIT Vs. Ambassador Travels (P) Ltd.
(ITA No.337/2008) dated 23.04.2008. In both these case
the Court while affirming of the judgment of Hon'ble High
Court of Bombay in the case of Nagindas M. Kapadia has
held that trading advances are not covered within the
mischief of section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act.