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.

185 results for “TDS”+ Section 32(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,239Delhi2,186Bangalore1,146Chennai761Kolkata471Hyderabad311Ahmedabad262Indore201Karnataka185Jaipur177Cochin170Chandigarh161Raipur153Pune149Surat76Rajkot70Visakhapatnam65Nagpur65Lucknow55Cuttack48Ranchi45Guwahati23Patna20Amritsar19Dehradun17Telangana16Agra13SC12Kerala9Jodhpur9Allahabad6Jabalpur5Calcutta4Rajasthan2Uttarakhand2Panaji1Varanasi1Himachal Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 260123Section 234E70TDS39Section 4018Section 260A14Disallowance9Section 2638Section 326Section 143(3)6Section 10A

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

Showing 1–20 of 185 · Page 1 of 10

...
6
Deduction6
Addition to Income6

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/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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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