https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406132 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling that the loan received by the assessee could not be deemed as dividend under Section 2(22)(e) as the assessee was not a shareholder of the lending company. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned due to the previous representative's failure to communicate the order. The issue of taxability under Section 40(a)(ia) was not extensively addressed as the focus was on the deemed dividend matter. The appeal was allowed, and the grounds raised by the assessee were upheld. en-us Tue, 30 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 Oct 2021 15:04:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406132 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling that the loan received by the assessee could not be deemed as dividend under Section 2(22)(e) as the assessee was not a shareholder of the lending company. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned due to the previous representative's failure to communicate the order. The issue of taxability under Section 40(a)(ia) was not extensively addressed as the focus was on the deemed dividend matter. The appeal was allowed, and the grounds raised by the assessee were upheld. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 30 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406132