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.

159 results for “TDS”+ Section 10(34)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,190Mumbai2,022Bangalore1,040Chennai731Kolkata384Hyderabad309Indore280Pune269Ahmedabad256Chandigarh189Jaipur188Raipur187Cochin179Karnataka159Surat111Lucknow75Visakhapatnam60Nagpur57Rajkot55Cuttack52Amritsar35Jodhpur35Ranchi35Dehradun31Guwahati30Agra27Panaji18Telangana18Patna17Allahabad12SC11Kerala9Varanasi8Rajasthan5Calcutta5Jabalpur4Uttarakhand2Punjab & Haryana2J&K1

Key Topics

Section 260110Section 234E84TDS41Section 260A13Section 1486Section 143(3)5Section 1475Section 153C4Section 1444Deduction

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/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

Showing 1–20 of 159 · Page 1 of 8

...
3
Addition to Income3
Disallowance2

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/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/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/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/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/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/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/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/665/2018HC 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

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/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/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/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

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/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