ITAT Quashes Rs 5.44 Lakh TDS Demand on SBI Over Leave Fare Concession Payments for Foreign Travel:

The ITAT quashed the Rs 5.44 lakh TDS demand against SBI on Leave Fare Concession payments for foreign travel, granting relief by following its earlier precedent.
ITAT Deletes Rs 5.44 Lakh Demand

ITAT Quashes Rs 5.44 Lakh TDS Demand on SBI Over Leave Fare Concession Payments for Foreign Travel
The ITAT Ahmedabad, in a recent significant ruling, has allowed the two appeals of SBI for AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18, holding that the TDS demand of Rs 5.44 lakh on Leave Fare Concession payments for foreign travel was unsustainable. Following its earlier precedent. The tribunal quashed the demand and ruled in favour of the assessee.
The State Bank of India (SBI) has filed two appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Ahmedabad, challenging the two different orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), dated February 11, and 05, 2026, pertaining to the Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2017-18 respectively.
In the present case, the income tax authorities had raised an aggregate demand amounting to approximately Rs 5.44 lakh via an order and a notice, both dated the same, i.e., March 31, 2023. According to the department, the said demand was imposed on the bank on the ground of "alleged short deduction/non-deduction of tax at source in respect of the "Leave Fare Concession" paid to certain employees who had undertaken travel to foreign destinations, including journeys involving a foreign leg, during the Financial Year 2015-16."
Being aggrieved with the order, the bank filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]; however, the same was dismissed through an order dated February 11, 2026, passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Thereafter, the assessee approached the ITAT Ahmedabad. The tribunal, when analysing the case, noted that issues similar to the present case had already been decided earlier in State Bank of India, Bhavnagar Vs. ITO for A.Y. 2016-17 in ITA Nos. 453 & 454/Ahd/2026, dated March 26, 2026.
Because the situation has not changed since a previous court ruling and no new legal arguments have been presented to us, we are ruling in favour of the taxpayer and cancelling the tax penalty or addition. The tribunal held that, "In the absence of any change in factual matrix and legal proposition brought to our notice, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed."
The second appeal (ITA No. 1583/Ahd/2026 for AY 2017-18) was also dismissed, as the issue raised in the same was identical to the other one. Accordingly, the assessee's appeals have been allowed.
About Author

Saloni Kumari
Content Writer
Saloni is a Content Writer with 2+ years of experience at studycafe.in. She writes legal, taxation, and finance related content including GST, Income Tax etc. Skilled in translating complex judicial pronouncements and regulatory developments into clear, and reader-friendly articles. Experienced in covering judgements of ITAT, High Court, GSTAT, and news related to Income Tax, GST, and corporate law. She can be reached at [email protected].
Saloni is a Content Writer with 2+ years of experience at studycafe.in. She writes legal, taxation, and finance related content including GST, Income Tax etc. Skilled in translating complex judicial pronouncements and regulatory developments into clear, and reader-friendly articles. Experienced in covering judgements of ITAT, High Court, GSTAT, and news related to Income Tax, GST, and corporate law. She can be reached at [email protected].
StudyCafe
Delhi, Delhi, India
2677My Recent Articles
- CBI Court Convicts and Sentences EPFO Officer to Rigorous Imprisonment for Four Years in Rs 10 Lakh Bribery Case
- ITAT Grants Rs 15.64 Lakh Tax Deduction to Cooperative Society Under Section 80P(2)(a)(i)Premium
- CBI Court Chennai Convicts and Sentences One Private Company and Six Other Individuals in Rs 2.68 Crore Bank Fraud Case
- Diligent Media Corporation Faces Rs 1.12 Crore GST Demand Over ITC Claimed From Ab Initio Cancelled Vendor
- ITAT Remands Case of Section 69A Unexplained Cash Deposits During Demonetisation Period After CIT(A) Passes Ex Parte OrderPremium
Up Next
Loading suggestions…
Recent Posts
All Posts
Tags
Recent Posts
All Posts








