https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2074 The Tribunal concluded that the loan advanced by M/s. Sahara India to the assessee could not be treated as a loan by SISICOL. The Judicial Member emphasized that there was no direction from SISICOL to advance the sum to the assessee and that the firm had historically advanced loans to the assessee without invoking section 2(22)(e). The Accountant Member suggested that 44% of the loan should be treated as coming from SISICOL, invoking the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil. The matter was referred back to the Bench for further examination and reframing of the point of difference. en-us Tue, 17 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 15 Jun 2013 17:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2074 The Tribunal concluded that the loan advanced by M/s. Sahara India to the assessee could not be treated as a loan by SISICOL. The Judicial Member emphasized that there was no direction from SISICOL to advance the sum to the assessee and that the firm had historically advanced loans to the assessee without invoking section 2(22)(e). The Accountant Member suggested that 44% of the loan should be treated as coming from SISICOL, invoking the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil. The matter was referred back to the Bench for further examination and reframing of the point of difference. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 17 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2074