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 10A(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Bangalore223Delhi199Mumbai173Chennai49Pune40Raipur38Kolkata33Hyderabad33Ahmedabad26Jaipur12Karnataka6Nagpur5Cochin5Cuttack4Surat4Rajkot4Indore4Varanasi2Visakhapatnam1Allahabad1Amritsar1Guwahati1Kerala1Panaji1Patna1Telangana1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 26016Section 10A9Section 1954Section 404TDS3Disallowance3Section 80H2Deduction2

M/S WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

ITA/881/2008HC Karnataka25 Mar 2015

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 260

TDS of Rs.6,02,14,066/- and advance tax payment of Rs.59,50,80,000/-. The assessee claimed refund of Rs.17,12,21,725/-. The return of income was processed u/s 143(1) on 31.01.2005 and the case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 14.02.2005. A questionnaire was issued on 27.04.2006 calling for certain

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WIPRO LTD

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

ITA/211/2009HC Karnataka25 Mar 2015

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 260

TDS of Rs.6,02,14,066/- and advance tax payment of Rs.59,50,80,000/-. The assessee claimed refund of Rs.17,12,21,725/-. The return of income was processed u/s 143(1) on 31.01.2005 and the case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 14.02.2005. A questionnaire was issued on 27.04.2006 calling for certain

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S WIPRO LIMITED

In the result, the appeal is disposed of in terms

ITA/464/2017HC Karnataka09 Dec 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 10ASection 260Section 260ASection 32

2 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and no TDS 16 was deducted on the payment, therefore, disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act has rightly been made. It is also pointed out that Section 40 of the Act begins with a non obstante clause and has an overriding effect on Section 30 to Section

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CERNER HEALTH

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

ITA/210/2016HC Karnataka26 May 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 10ASection 195Section 260Section 40

2. This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been filed by the revenue against the order dated 04.09.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2008-09. The appeal was admitted by a Bench of this

LITTLE EYE SOFTWARE LABS PRIVATE LIMITED

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

COP/210/2016HC Karnataka25 Nov 2016

Bench: VINEET KOTHARI

Section 10ASection 195Section 260Section 40

2. This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been filed by the revenue against the order dated 04.09.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2008-09. The appeal was admitted by a Bench of this

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LTD

The appeal is disposed off

ITA/174/2011HC Karnataka19 Nov 2018

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

Section 10ASection 195Section 260Section 40Section 80H

2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that payment of subscription charges of Rs.7,75,87,889/- made of M/s. Gartner Group, Faster Research Inc., Mehta Group and Giga Group to confer a license to post enquiries to analysts around the globe via the Web, conference calls and face to face meetings, was not liable to TDS