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.

235 results for “TDS”+ Section 13(1)(c)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi3,183Mumbai3,043Bangalore1,765Chennai992Kolkata803Pune629Indore548Ahmedabad537Hyderabad502Jaipur373Chandigarh337Cochin271Raipur256Karnataka235Visakhapatnam180Surat143Nagpur128Cuttack107Rajkot100Lucknow92Amritsar56Ranchi54Dehradun50Jabalpur42Panaji40Guwahati37Agra31Allahabad30Patna29Jodhpur26SC19Telangana17Kerala13Varanasi10Himachal Pradesh8Rajasthan5Calcutta5Orissa2Uttarakhand2J&K1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 260138TDS63Section 234E60Section 260A43Section 201(1)14Deduction13Section 4011Section 194H8Section 1928Section 194J

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

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

Showing 1–20 of 235 · Page 1 of 12

...
6
Addition to Income6
Disallowance4

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

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

C’ Bench, Bengaluru (‘Tribunal’ for short). 3. The appeals were admitted by this Court to consider the following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the levy of tax under Section 201(1) and interest under Section 201(1A) of the Act as determined by the TDS authority? - 22 - 2. Whether denial of exemption under

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

C’ Bench, Bengaluru (‘Tribunal’ for short). 3. The appeals were admitted by this Court to consider the following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the levy of tax under Section 201(1) and interest under Section 201(1A) of the Act as determined by the TDS authority? - 22 - 2. Whether denial of exemption under

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

C’ Bench, Bengaluru (‘Tribunal’ for short). 3. The appeals were admitted by this Court to consider the following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the levy of tax under Section 201(1) and interest under Section 201(1A) of the Act as determined by the TDS authority? - 22 - 2. Whether denial of exemption under

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

C’ Bench, Bengaluru (‘Tribunal’ for short). 3. The appeals were admitted by this Court to consider the following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the levy of tax under Section 201(1) and interest under Section 201(1A) of the Act as determined by the TDS authority? - 22 - 2. Whether denial of exemption under

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

C’ Bench, Bengaluru (‘Tribunal’ for short). 3. The appeals were admitted by this Court to consider the following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the levy of tax under Section 201(1) and interest under Section 201(1A) of the Act as determined by the TDS authority? - 22 - 2. Whether denial of exemption under

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

C’ Bench, Bengaluru (‘Tribunal’ for short). 3. The appeals were admitted by this Court to consider the following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the levy of tax under Section 201(1) and interest under Section 201(1A) of the Act as determined by the TDS authority? - 22 - 2. Whether denial of exemption under

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

C’ Bench, Bengaluru (‘Tribunal’ for short). 3. The appeals were admitted by this Court to consider the following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the levy of tax under Section 201(1) and interest under Section 201(1A) of the Act as determined by the TDS authority? - 22 - 2. Whether denial of exemption under

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

C’ Bench, Bengaluru (‘Tribunal’ for short). 3. The appeals were admitted by this Court to consider the following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the levy of tax under Section 201(1) and interest under Section 201(1A) of the Act as determined by the TDS authority? - 22 - 2. Whether denial of exemption under

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

C’ Bench, Bengaluru (‘Tribunal’ for short). 3. The appeals were admitted by this Court to consider the following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the levy of tax under Section 201(1) and interest under Section 201(1A) of the Act as determined by the TDS authority? - 22 - 2. Whether denial of exemption under

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

C’ Bench, Bengaluru (‘Tribunal’ for short). 3. The appeals were admitted by this Court to consider the following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the levy of tax under Section 201(1) and interest under Section 201(1A) of the Act as determined by the TDS authority? - 22 - 2. Whether denial of exemption under

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

C’ Bench, Bengaluru (‘Tribunal’ for short). 3. The appeals were admitted by this Court to consider the following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the levy of tax under Section 201(1) and interest under Section 201(1A) of the Act as determined by the TDS authority? - 22 - 2. Whether denial of exemption under

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

C’ Bench, Bengaluru (‘Tribunal’ for short). 3. The appeals were admitted by this Court to consider the following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the levy of tax under Section 201(1) and interest under Section 201(1A) of the Act as determined by the TDS authority? - 22 - 2. Whether denial of exemption under

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

C’ Bench, Bengaluru (‘Tribunal’ for short). 3. The appeals were admitted by this Court to consider the following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the levy of tax under Section 201(1) and interest under Section 201(1A) of the Act as determined by the TDS authority? - 22 - 2. Whether denial of exemption under

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

C’ Bench, Bengaluru (‘Tribunal’ for short). 3. The appeals were admitted by this Court to consider the following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the levy of tax under Section 201(1) and interest under Section 201(1A) of the Act as determined by the TDS authority? - 22 - 2. Whether denial of exemption under

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

C’ Bench, Bengaluru (‘Tribunal’ for short). 3. The appeals were admitted by this Court to consider the following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the levy of tax under Section 201(1) and interest under Section 201(1A) of the Act as determined by the TDS authority? - 22 - 2. Whether denial of exemption under

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

C’ Bench, Bengaluru (‘Tribunal’ for short). 3. The appeals were admitted by this Court to consider the following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the levy of tax under Section 201(1) and interest under Section 201(1A) of the Act as determined by the TDS authority? - 22 - 2. Whether denial of exemption under

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

C’ Bench, Bengaluru (‘Tribunal’ for short). 3. The appeals were admitted by this Court to consider the following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the levy of tax under Section 201(1) and interest under Section 201(1A) of the Act as determined by the TDS authority? - 22 - 2. Whether denial of exemption under

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

C’ Bench, Bengaluru (‘Tribunal’ for short). 3. The appeals were admitted by this Court to consider the following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the levy of tax under Section 201(1) and interest under Section 201(1A) of the Act as determined by the TDS authority? - 22 - 2. Whether denial of exemption under