https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338408 The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal for A.Y. 2010-11, upholding the CIT(A)'s order on both issues. The Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the purchases were bogus under Section 69C and established legal precedent distinguished business loans from deemed dividends under Section 2(22)(e). en-us Tue, 31 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 Feb 2017 11:08:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338408 The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal for A.Y. 2010-11, upholding the CIT(A)'s order on both issues. The Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the purchases were bogus under Section 69C and established legal precedent distinguished business loans from deemed dividends under Section 2(22)(e). Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 31 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338408