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.

6 results for “disallowance”+ Section 18clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai10,125Delhi8,771Bangalore3,133Chennai2,820Kolkata2,615Ahmedabad2,052Pune1,767Hyderabad1,446Jaipur1,403Chandigarh818Surat811Indore754Raipur487Visakhapatnam459Cochin386Rajkot355Amritsar348Cuttack347Karnataka331Nagpur299Lucknow235Agra156Jodhpur154Guwahati141Panaji131Ranchi100Allahabad99Telangana99SC99Patna69Calcutta60Dehradun57Jabalpur37Kerala37Varanasi34Punjab & Haryana8Orissa6A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN6Rajasthan5Himachal Pradesh4Gauhati2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Tripura1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1

Key Topics

Section 80H7Section 11A4Section 44Deduction3Exemption2Limitation/Time-bar2Addition to Income2

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

18 Page 19 JUDGMENT Section 4 has never changed even after two amendments. The “place of removal” has been amended from time to time so that it could be expanded from a factory or any other premises of manufacture or production, to warehouses or depots wherein the excisable goods have been permitted to be deposited either with payment of duty

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)

18 of 27 Page 19 JUDGMENT specifically defined in Section 4(3)(d) of the said Act. The present Section 4(1)(a) r/w definition of term transaction value gives more clarity and all doubts as to how the assessable value is to be arrived at are removed. It is also noted that the various items incorporated in the term

HERO CYCLES (P) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)

Appeal is allowed, thereby setting aside the order of the

C.A. No.-000514-000514 - 2008Supreme Court05 Nov 2015
Section 36(1)(iii)

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). The aforesaid deduction was disallowed by the Assessing Officer vide his Assesssment Order dated 26.03.1991 on the following two points: - (1) The assessee had advanced a sum of Rs.1,16,26,128/- to its subsidiary company known as M/s. Hero Fibers Limited and this advance

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

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

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

Section 35B of the Act. The Commissioner of Central Excise preferred the appeal as directed by the Central Board of Excise & Customs against his own Order-in-Original No.32/2002-Commr. dated 21.06.2002 before the Tribunal. 5. The Tribunal allowed the appeal preferred by the Commissioner of Central Excise vide its decision dated 17.07.2007. Perusal of the decision indicates following thought process