If the above contribution is in the spirit of the dividend within the meaning of the India-Maurice DBAA: 4. If the lender sends the borrower notification of the securities margin (in this Fall______% to be lifted) and if the borrower refuses and/or does not default, the margin in this case is legal (but not mandatory) for the lender to require the borrower to repay the loan at the same time as the interest then unpaid, and the borrower is required to repay the loan at the same time as the interest he must repay in full, without objection and/or in any case, and in this case, he is entitled to request the loan repayment of the loan. 13. In this context, our attention was drawn to Portescap`s evaluation for the 2009-10 u/s 143 (3) evaluation of the 21.12.2012 Act, a copy of which is available on page 59 to 75 of the paper book. In this evaluation, the evaluator examined the applicability of Section 2, paragraph 22, under e), of portescap`s amount to Videojet. In an in-depth discussion, including his review of the two groups` participation model, the existence of cumulative profits in Portescap`s hands, the nature of the advance as an ICD or not, the notator finally qualified, at point 7.13 of his decision, the amount of “dividend”, which is “in the hands of M/s Videojet Technologies (India) Pvt. In the case of Portescap, the evaluator imposed the amount of 13 kronor as a “dividend” u/s 2 (22) (e) of the law on the basis of protection. The notator had another discussion on the basis of certain judicial statements relating to the right entity in the hands of which such a “dividend” is taxable, whether in the hands of the beneficiary, who is not a registered shareholder, or in the hands of the registered shareholder. In this context, he considered that the judicial statements provided for the amount: which should be taxed in the hands of the shareholder, unlike the beneficiary`s concern business that he found, for which “a separate procedure is initiated to tax the “loan payment” as a “dividend” in the hands of the shareholder, taking into account the above-mentioned judgments, u/s 163 of the law, by treating the valuation company as a “representative” u/s 163 of the law.