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 11(1)(c)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai10,035Delhi8,481Bangalore3,268Chennai2,702Kolkata2,612Ahmedabad2,056Pune1,430Jaipur1,376Hyderabad1,118Chandigarh798Indore682Surat587Cochin438Raipur431Visakhapatnam373Amritsar333Rajkot299Karnataka299Cuttack285Lucknow220Nagpur216Panaji150Agra136Jodhpur129Guwahati113SC98Telangana85Allahabad84Ranchi73Calcutta68Dehradun58Kerala43Patna36Varanasi36Jabalpur27Punjab & Haryana12Rajasthan8Orissa7Himachal Pradesh6A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN4A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Gauhati1Uttarakhand1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 80H7Section 11A4Section 44Deduction2Limitation/Time-bar2

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

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MYSORE vs. M/S. TVS MOTORS COMPANY LTD

C.A. No.-005155-005156 - 2007Supreme Court15 Dec 2015
Section 4Section 4(3)(d)

11 1999 (078) ECR 342 (T) Civil Appeal Nos. 5155-5156 of 2007 & Ors. Page 16 of 27 Page 17 JUDGMENT the aforesaid cases were dismissed by this Court on 27.01.2000 with one line order without giving any reasons. He emphasized and insisted that the issue involved in the present case is more proximate with the factual position that prevailed

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

11 Page 12 JUDGMENT wholesale trade for delivery at the time and place of removal, where the buyer is not a related person and the price is the sole consideration for the sale: Provided that - (i) where, in accordance with the normal practice of the wholesale trade in such goods, such goods are sold by the assessee at different prices

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

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

disallowing the benefit of the notification to the Defibrillator thereby concurring with the view of the Technical Member. 11) This is how the matter has come up to this court in the form of present appeal filed by the appellant under Section 35 L(b) of the Civil Appeal Nos. 5523 & 6037 of 2004 Page 7 of 19 Page