Do teaching an advance course helps in evaluation and tenure? Do teaching an advance course helps in promotion or it does not matter?
Within my U.S. math department, teaching a successful, energetic, research-oriented graduate "topics" course is a plus inside the department. It is also essential, within the department, to have demonstrated "acceptable" capacity to teach bread-and-butter courses, such as ... calculus.

The engineering departments that determine the course of the "college of science and engineering" (due, I imagine, to the size of external grant funding... and the concommitant "overhead") view math, physics, and chemistry fundamentally as "service" departments, and, indeed, the size of these departments is hard to justify on any practical grounds except for the hordes of freshman and sophomores taking filtering/weeding/service courses. In any event, when tenure cases reach the "college" level, demonstrated success in teaching those lower-division courses is considered essential ... research success is taken for granted, and considered of mostly internal interest to the department, not to the college... and minimal involvement or non-involvement with lower-division teaching can ... upset... the engineering faculty.

So, at that level, it would be unwise to have exclusively done advanced teaching, even if "only" at an undergraduate level.

Within the department, it shows a certain kind of energy, I think, because it may well require more psychological effort to do the best job with higher-level material than to do an acceptable job with low-level material aided by a phalanx of teaching assistants. But there seems to be a watershed in preferences about teaching graduate courses, so new faculty preferences in that regard are mostly construed as a matter of taste or opinion, not essential.