BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

6 results for “TDS”+ Section 65Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Cochin57Delhi46Hyderabad44Mumbai19Visakhapatnam8Chennai6Chandigarh4Indore3Cuttack1Jaipur1SC1

Key Topics

Section 13912Section 153A8Section 1324Section 374Section 139(1)4Section 65B4Disallowance4Addition to Income4Section 92Section 195

DCIT, CIRCLE - 2 (1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION,, CHENNAI vs. M/S. PETROFAC ENGINEERING SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for both

ITA 656/CHNY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.656 & 657/Chny/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Vs M/S. Petrofac Engineering The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Services Pvt.Ltd. 7Th Floor, Block 9A Circle-2(1), International Taxation, Chennai. Dlf Infocity Sez 1/124 Shivaji Gardens, Nandambakkam Post Manapakkam, Chennai-600089. Pan: Aaecp 1211H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Ashik Shah, C.A ""For Respondent: 08.12.2021
Section 195Section 201(1)Section 9

TDS under section 195 of the Income-tax Act can be held liable to deduct such sums at a time when Explanation 4 was factually not on the statute book, all • This question is answered by two Latin maxims, lex non cogit ad impossibilia, i.e., the law does not demand the impossible and impotentia excusat legem, i.e., when there

2
Business Income2
Exemption2

DCIT, CIRCLE - 2 (1), INTERNTIONAL TAXATION, CHENNAI vs. M/S. PETROFAC ENGINEERING SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD,,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for both

ITA 657/CHNY/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.656 & 657/Chny/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Vs M/S. Petrofac Engineering The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Services Pvt.Ltd. 7Th Floor, Block 9A Circle-2(1), International Taxation, Chennai. Dlf Infocity Sez 1/124 Shivaji Gardens, Nandambakkam Post Manapakkam, Chennai-600089. Pan: Aaecp 1211H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Ashik Shah, C.A ""For Respondent: 08.12.2021
Section 195Section 201(1)Section 9

TDS under section 195 of the Income-tax Act can be held liable to deduct such sums at a time when Explanation 4 was factually not on the statute book, all • This question is answered by two Latin maxims, lex non cogit ad impossibilia, i.e., the law does not demand the impossible and impotentia excusat legem, i.e., when there

SHRI. IRULANDI THEVAR VETRIVEL,MADURAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MADURAI, MADURAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 235/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Y Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri R Clement Ramesh
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 37Section 65B

65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The relevant scanned images of the Profit & Loss Account extracted from the seized tally software was reproduced by the AO in the impugned assessment orders. 4. Upon analysis of the above seized material i.e. the tally software, the AO was of the view that, the tally data revealed that, the assessee had understated

SHRI. IRULANDI THEVAR VETRIVEL ,MADURAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MADURAI, MADURAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 239/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Y Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri R Clement Ramesh
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 37Section 65B

65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The relevant scanned images of the Profit & Loss Account extracted from the seized tally software was reproduced by the AO in the impugned assessment orders. 4. Upon analysis of the above seized material i.e. the tally software, the AO was of the view that, the tally data revealed that, the assessee had understated

SHRI. IRULANDI THEVAR VETRIVEL,MADURAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CRICLE 2, MADURAI, MADURAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 240/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Y Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri R Clement Ramesh
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 37Section 65B

65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The relevant scanned images of the Profit & Loss Account extracted from the seized tally software was reproduced by the AO in the impugned assessment orders. 4. Upon analysis of the above seized material i.e. the tally software, the AO was of the view that, the tally data revealed that, the assessee had understated

SHIR. IRULANDI THEVAR VETRIVEL,MADURAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MADURAI, MADURAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 236/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Y Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri R Clement Ramesh
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 37Section 65B

65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The relevant scanned images of the Profit & Loss Account extracted from the seized tally software was reproduced by the AO in the impugned assessment orders. 4. Upon analysis of the above seized material i.e. the tally software, the AO was of the view that, the tally data revealed that, the assessee had understated