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.

4 results for “disallowance”+ Section 10(4)(ii)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai10,268Delhi8,635Bangalore3,101Chennai2,785Kolkata2,656Ahmedabad1,150Pune914Jaipur903Hyderabad853Indore629Surat514Raipur502Chandigarh453Karnataka400Rajkot294Visakhapatnam294Cochin273Amritsar259Nagpur243Lucknow227Cuttack152Panaji116Telangana114Agra112SC100Guwahati95Calcutta75Jodhpur73Patna70Ranchi66Allahabad60Dehradun49Kerala40Varanasi37Punjab & Haryana26Jabalpur20Rajasthan7Orissa6A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN4Himachal Pradesh4Gauhati2RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 80H7Section 11A4Deduction2Exemption2Limitation/Time-bar2

M/S. PUROLATOR INDIA LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-III

Appeal is disposed of accordingly

C.A. No.-001959-001959 - 2006Supreme Court25 Aug 2015
Section 11ASection 11A(1)Section 38ASection 4

10 Page 11 JUDGMENT place of manufacture or production, or if a wholesale market does not exist for such article at such place, at the nearest place where such market exists, or (b) Where such price is not ascertainable, the price at which an article of the like kind and quality is sold or is capable of being sold

JEYAR CONSULTANT & INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,MADRAS

C.A. No.-008912-008912 - 2003Supreme Court01 Apr 2015
Section 80H

disallowed the deduction claim of the assessee under Section 80HHC of the Act on the ground that the 'profits of the business computed under Section 80HHC indicated a negative figure'. This view was accepted by all the Courts and affirmed by this Court in the aforesaid judgment. Before this Court, submission of the appellant/assessee was that a reading of Section

M/S. B.P.L. LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALICUT

C.A. No.-005523-005523 - 2004Supreme Court05 May 2015
Section 11A

II COMMISSIONERATE .....RESPONDENT(S) W I T H CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6037 OF 2004 J U D G M E N T A.K. SIKRI, J. The issue, which arises for consideration in the present appeals is whether the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, 'CESTAT'), Bangalore erred in disallowing the benefit of the Notification No.8/96 dated

M/S MERIDIAN INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. COMMR.OF CENTRAL EXCISE

C.A. No.-004112-004112 - 2007Supreme Court27 Oct 2015
Section 35B

4. However, the Central Board of Excise & Customs, reviewed the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise in Order-in-Original No.32/2002-Commr. dated 21.06.2002 and directed the Commissioner to present an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal exercising power under Section 35B of the Act. The Commissioner of Central Excise preferred the appeal as directed by the Central Board of Excise