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.

68 results for “TDS”+ Set Off of Lossesclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,464Delhi1,871Bangalore939Chennai900Kolkata647Ahmedabad297Hyderabad268Jaipur222Chandigarh188Raipur168Pune158Surat98Indore95Cochin94Rajkot85Visakhapatnam80Cuttack74Karnataka68Lucknow62Ranchi49Nagpur47Jabalpur39Patna33Amritsar29Guwahati27Jodhpur25Allahabad19Telangana19Panaji18Agra16Varanasi14Dehradun13SC10Calcutta2Kerala2Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 26087Section 234E84TDS39Section 4031Section 260A24Disallowance16Deduction14Section 143(3)11Section 26311Section 201(1)

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

set off of losses of STP / SEZ units against other income of the assessee by following its previous order in the case of assessee itself for Assessment Year 2007-08. The claim for depreciation on software was also allowed by following its previous order in the case of the assessee for Assessment Year 2004-05. The claim of the assessee

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PVT. LTD.,

Accordingly dispose of the appeal as allowed

Showing 1–20 of 68 · Page 1 of 4

11
Section 194H9
Addition to Income9
ITA/53/2024
HC Karnataka
05 Jun 2025

Bench: ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,S RACHAIAH

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 260ASection 263Section 40

loss account. Since the assessee did not deduct TDS on this sum, the disallowance should have been made in terms of Section 40(a)(ia). He also stated that, the Tribunal has failed to note that, a similar disallowance was made in the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15. Moreover, it is not a case where

SRI MUKESH GUPTA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/283/2022HC Karnataka31 Oct 2025

Bench: D K SINGH,RAJESH RAI K

Section 260

TDS by the company and thus has passed a perverse order, on the facts and circumstances of the case. ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in disregarding the additional evidence, in so far as the orders of the service tax department, which has held the services rendered by the appellant, as professional in nature and not to be treated

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

ITA/384/2018HC Karnataka29 Sept 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 260

TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will apply for A.Y.2014-15 onwards?” In ITA No.381/2018: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating material is necessary condition for proceedings under Section 153A

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

ITA/385/2018HC Karnataka29 Sept 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 260

TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will apply for A.Y.2014-15 onwards?” In ITA No.381/2018: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating material is necessary condition for proceedings under Section 153A

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

ITA/380/2018HC Karnataka29 Sept 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 260

TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will apply for A.Y.2014-15 onwards?” In ITA No.381/2018: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating material is necessary condition for proceedings under Section 153A

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

ITA/381/2018HC Karnataka29 Sept 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 260

TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will apply for A.Y.2014-15 onwards?” In ITA No.381/2018: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating material is necessary condition for proceedings under Section 153A

THE PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

ITA/197/2021HC Karnataka29 Sept 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 260

TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will apply for A.Y.2014-15 onwards?” In ITA No.381/2018: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating material is necessary condition for proceedings under Section 153A

THE PR. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

ITA/199/2021HC Karnataka29 Sept 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 260

TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will apply for A.Y.2014-15 onwards?” In ITA No.381/2018: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating material is necessary condition for proceedings under Section 153A

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

ITA/383/2018HC Karnataka29 Sept 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 260

TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will apply for A.Y.2014-15 onwards?” In ITA No.381/2018: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating material is necessary condition for proceedings under Section 153A

THE PR. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

ITA/198/2021HC Karnataka29 Sept 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 260

TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will apply for A.Y.2014-15 onwards?” In ITA No.381/2018: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating material is necessary condition for proceedings under Section 153A

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

ITA/382/2018HC Karnataka29 Sept 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 260

TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will apply for A.Y.2014-15 onwards?” In ITA No.381/2018: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating material is necessary condition for proceedings under Section 153A

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.,

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

ITA/324/2018HC Karnataka29 Sept 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 260

TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will apply for A.Y.2014-15 onwards?” In ITA No.381/2018: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating material is necessary condition for proceedings under Section 153A

COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SHAW WALLACE

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA/502/2013HC Karnataka09 Nov 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 260Section 36(1)(vii)

SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 17-05-2013 PASSED BY THE ITAT, ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE, AS SOUGHT FOR, IN THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE'S CASE, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS NO.ITA NO.5656/MUM/06 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Mr.Jeevan J.Neeralagi, learned counsel with Mr.E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel

M/S.KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA/750/2009HC Karnataka02 Feb 2016

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 194Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 260

TDS) Circle 16(2), Bangalore. …Respondent (By Sri.K.V. Aravind, Advocate ) These Appeals are filed under Section 260-A of I.T.Act, 1961 to set aside the order passed by the ITAT Bangalore in ITA Nos.1449 to 1451/BNG/2008, dated 03.07.2009, in the interest of justice and equity ® 2 These Appeals having been heard and reserved for orders on 25th January 2016, coming

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S. CORPORATION BANK

Appeal stands dismissed accordingly

ITA/362/2018HC Karnataka08 Nov 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

Section 115JSection 14ASection 194HSection 2(17)Section 260Section 260ASection 36(1)Section 40

TDS as required under Section 194H of the Act? 5. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the disallowances made under Section 36(1) (viia) and (viii) by relying upon its earlier orders passed for the assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12 which have been challenged before

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ALLOY STEELS,

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed

ITA/5001/2012HC Karnataka19 Jun 2013

Bench: N.K.PATIL,B.MANOHAR

Section 143Section 260ASection 263Section 40

TDS provision is not applicable to these expenses contrary to the order passed by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax be restored directing the Assessing Authority to redo the process afresh and decide the matter after affording reasonable opportunity

PR. COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD.,

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

ITA/199/2017HC Karnataka16 Dec 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 195Section 260Section 40

setting aside the disallowance of claim of depreciation on purchase of Intellectual Property Rights made by assessing authority under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act as they had failed to deduct TDS on payments made in respect of purchase of intellectual property rights by following its earlier order which has not reached finality and even when the ingredients

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

ITA/951/2017HC Karnataka16 Dec 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 195Section 260Section 40

setting aside the disallowance of claim of depreciation on purchase of Intellectual Property Rights made by assessing authority under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act as they had failed to deduct TDS on payments made in respect of purchase of intellectual property rights by following its earlier order which has not reached finality and even when the ingredients

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

ITA/952/2017HC Karnataka16 Dec 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 195Section 260Section 40

setting aside the disallowance of claim of depreciation on purchase of Intellectual Property Rights made by assessing authority under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act as they had failed to deduct TDS on payments made in respect of purchase of intellectual property rights by following its earlier order which has not reached finality and even when the ingredients