The loan or advance to the assessee was held to be liable to be assessed in its hands as deemed dividend under S. 2(22)(e) read with S,56 of the Act. CIT (A) confirmed the addition.  On appeal the Tribunal held that, the period of retention has again been found to be not relevant. Inasmuch as each payment qualifying as a loan or advance falls within the ambit of the provision, and its subsequent repayment held as of no consequence, the entire payment to (receipt by) the shareholder (company) would stand to be regarded as ‘dividend’. The revenue has, in regarding only the peak amount advanced as the qualifying amount, acted as reasonable as it could under the circumstances, i.e., given the settled law in the matter, the payment being regarded as dividend only under its artificial definition, as explained, per an irrebuttable presumption, statutorily provided. The question of the genuineness of the loan or advance, is, for the same reason, of no significance. Further, being not a regular dividend, declared and paid by company, the same does not fall to be covered under S. 10(34) and, thus, is not excepted under S. 56. The same has, accordingly, been rightly brought to tax under S.2(24)(ii) read with S.2(22)(e) and 56 by the revenue.  (AY. 2014-15)