https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216030 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Revenue regarding the legality of proceedings under S.201(1) and 201(1A) after four years, citing a six-year limitation period. However, the Tribunal sided with the assessee on the applicability of TDS provisions to deemed dividends under S.2(22)(e), allowing relief for non-shareholder payments. The classification of advances as trade advances or deemed dividends was remanded for further consideration due to lack of detailed reasoning. The Tribunal also relieved the assessee from liability under S.194 for deducting tax at source on non-shareholder payments, ultimately allowing the assessee's appeals and remanding certain issues for fresh consideration. en-us Fri, 08 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Apr 2016 16:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216030 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Revenue regarding the legality of proceedings under S.201(1) and 201(1A) after four years, citing a six-year limitation period. However, the Tribunal sided with the assessee on the applicability of TDS provisions to deemed dividends under S.2(22)(e), allowing relief for non-shareholder payments. The classification of advances as trade advances or deemed dividends was remanded for further consideration due to lack of detailed reasoning. The Tribunal also relieved the assessee from liability under S.194 for deducting tax at source on non-shareholder payments, ultimately allowing the assessee's appeals and remanding certain issues for fresh consideration. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 08 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216030