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.

179 results for “TDS”+ Section 10(26)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,462Mumbai2,386Bangalore1,400Chennai886Kolkata548Pune454Hyderabad391Ahmedabad327Cochin290Jaipur238Indore234Raipur214Chandigarh207Karnataka179Surat114Nagpur80Visakhapatnam78Rajkot76Lucknow71Cuttack60Amritsar42Ranchi37Guwahati36Dehradun30Allahabad21Agra20Panaji19Jodhpur18Telangana18Patna15SC14Jabalpur12Kerala10Varanasi9Calcutta4Uttarakhand3Punjab & Haryana2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Gauhati1Orissa1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 260151Section 234E84TDS55Section 260A13Section 201(1)11Section 1928Section 1948Deduction8Section 143(3)6Section 148

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Appeals stand dismissed

ITA/663/2018HC Karnataka17 Dec 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 260

TDS], Kanpur [(2016) 158 ITD 194 (Luck–Trib)], dismissed the appeals. The fact that the employees departed from a place in India and ended up his journey in a place in India should have been considered and atleast the cost for the shortage route incurred by the employee should have been considered for exemption under Section 10

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Appeals stand dismissed

ITA/646/2018HC Karnataka17 Dec 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 260

TDS], Kanpur [(2016) 158 ITD 194 (Luck–Trib)], dismissed the appeals. The fact that the employees departed from a place in India and ended up his journey in a place in India should have been considered and atleast the cost for the shortage route incurred by the employee should have been considered for exemption under Section 10

Showing 1–20 of 179 · Page 1 of 9

...
6
Addition to Income4
Survey u/s 133A3

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Appeals stand dismissed

ITA/662/2018HC Karnataka17 Dec 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 260

TDS], Kanpur [(2016) 158 ITD 194 (Luck–Trib)], dismissed the appeals. The fact that the employees departed from a place in India and ended up his journey in a place in India should have been considered and atleast the cost for the shortage route incurred by the employee should have been considered for exemption under Section 10

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Appeals stand dismissed

ITA/667/2018HC Karnataka17 Dec 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 260

TDS], Kanpur [(2016) 158 ITD 194 (Luck–Trib)], dismissed the appeals. The fact that the employees departed from a place in India and ended up his journey in a place in India should have been considered and atleast the cost for the shortage route incurred by the employee should have been considered for exemption under Section 10

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Appeals stand dismissed

ITA/652/2018HC Karnataka17 Dec 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 260

TDS], Kanpur [(2016) 158 ITD 194 (Luck–Trib)], dismissed the appeals. The fact that the employees departed from a place in India and ended up his journey in a place in India should have been considered and atleast the cost for the shortage route incurred by the employee should have been considered for exemption under Section 10

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Appeals stand dismissed

ITA/644/2018HC Karnataka17 Dec 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 260

TDS], Kanpur [(2016) 158 ITD 194 (Luck–Trib)], dismissed the appeals. The fact that the employees departed from a place in India and ended up his journey in a place in India should have been considered and atleast the cost for the shortage route incurred by the employee should have been considered for exemption under Section 10

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Appeals stand dismissed

ITA/769/2018HC Karnataka17 Dec 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 260

TDS], Kanpur [(2016) 158 ITD 194 (Luck–Trib)], dismissed the appeals. The fact that the employees departed from a place in India and ended up his journey in a place in India should have been considered and atleast the cost for the shortage route incurred by the employee should have been considered for exemption under Section 10

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Appeals stand dismissed

ITA/770/2018HC Karnataka17 Dec 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 260

TDS], Kanpur [(2016) 158 ITD 194 (Luck–Trib)], dismissed the appeals. The fact that the employees departed from a place in India and ended up his journey in a place in India should have been considered and atleast the cost for the shortage route incurred by the employee should have been considered for exemption under Section 10

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Appeals stand dismissed

ITA/671/2018HC Karnataka17 Dec 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 260

TDS], Kanpur [(2016) 158 ITD 194 (Luck–Trib)], dismissed the appeals. The fact that the employees departed from a place in India and ended up his journey in a place in India should have been considered and atleast the cost for the shortage route incurred by the employee should have been considered for exemption under Section 10

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Appeals stand dismissed

ITA/768/2018HC Karnataka17 Dec 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 260

TDS], Kanpur [(2016) 158 ITD 194 (Luck–Trib)], dismissed the appeals. The fact that the employees departed from a place in India and ended up his journey in a place in India should have been considered and atleast the cost for the shortage route incurred by the employee should have been considered for exemption under Section 10

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Appeals stand dismissed

ITA/650/2018HC Karnataka17 Dec 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 260

TDS], Kanpur [(2016) 158 ITD 194 (Luck–Trib)], dismissed the appeals. The fact that the employees departed from a place in India and ended up his journey in a place in India should have been considered and atleast the cost for the shortage route incurred by the employee should have been considered for exemption under Section 10

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Appeals stand dismissed

ITA/648/2018HC Karnataka17 Dec 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 260

TDS], Kanpur [(2016) 158 ITD 194 (Luck–Trib)], dismissed the appeals. The fact that the employees departed from a place in India and ended up his journey in a place in India should have been considered and atleast the cost for the shortage route incurred by the employee should have been considered for exemption under Section 10

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Appeals stand dismissed

ITA/664/2018HC Karnataka17 Dec 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 260

TDS], Kanpur [(2016) 158 ITD 194 (Luck–Trib)], dismissed the appeals. The fact that the employees departed from a place in India and ended up his journey in a place in India should have been considered and atleast the cost for the shortage route incurred by the employee should have been considered for exemption under Section 10

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Appeals stand dismissed

ITA/666/2018HC Karnataka17 Dec 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 260

TDS], Kanpur [(2016) 158 ITD 194 (Luck–Trib)], dismissed the appeals. The fact that the employees departed from a place in India and ended up his journey in a place in India should have been considered and atleast the cost for the shortage route incurred by the employee should have been considered for exemption under Section 10

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Appeals stand dismissed

ITA/766/2018HC Karnataka17 Dec 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 260

TDS], Kanpur [(2016) 158 ITD 194 (Luck–Trib)], dismissed the appeals. The fact that the employees departed from a place in India and ended up his journey in a place in India should have been considered and atleast the cost for the shortage route incurred by the employee should have been considered for exemption under Section 10

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Appeals stand dismissed

ITA/649/2018HC Karnataka17 Dec 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 260

TDS], Kanpur [(2016) 158 ITD 194 (Luck–Trib)], dismissed the appeals. The fact that the employees departed from a place in India and ended up his journey in a place in India should have been considered and atleast the cost for the shortage route incurred by the employee should have been considered for exemption under Section 10

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Appeals stand dismissed

ITA/654/2018HC Karnataka17 Dec 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 260

TDS], Kanpur [(2016) 158 ITD 194 (Luck–Trib)], dismissed the appeals. The fact that the employees departed from a place in India and ended up his journey in a place in India should have been considered and atleast the cost for the shortage route incurred by the employee should have been considered for exemption under Section 10

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Appeals stand dismissed

ITA/642/2018HC Karnataka17 Dec 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 260

TDS], Kanpur [(2016) 158 ITD 194 (Luck–Trib)], dismissed the appeals. The fact that the employees departed from a place in India and ended up his journey in a place in India should have been considered and atleast the cost for the shortage route incurred by the employee should have been considered for exemption under Section 10

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Appeals stand dismissed

ITA/669/2018HC Karnataka17 Dec 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 260

TDS], Kanpur [(2016) 158 ITD 194 (Luck–Trib)], dismissed the appeals. The fact that the employees departed from a place in India and ended up his journey in a place in India should have been considered and atleast the cost for the shortage route incurred by the employee should have been considered for exemption under Section 10

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Appeals stand dismissed

ITA/670/2018HC Karnataka17 Dec 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 260

TDS], Kanpur [(2016) 158 ITD 194 (Luck–Trib)], dismissed the appeals. The fact that the employees departed from a place in India and ended up his journey in a place in India should have been considered and atleast the cost for the shortage route incurred by the employee should have been considered for exemption under Section 10