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.

5 results for “disallowance”+ Section 2(14)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai5,109Delhi4,976Chennai1,390Bangalore1,112Ahmedabad983Hyderabad945Jaipur888Kolkata803Pune669Chandigarh447Indore414Raipur403Surat397Cochin293Rajkot264Visakhapatnam260Amritsar212Nagpur201Lucknow161SC136Cuttack103Panaji102Jodhpur98Ranchi95Guwahati87Patna77Allahabad72Agra67Dehradun51Jabalpur26Varanasi14A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN5A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 80H7Section 11A4Section 44Deduction2Exemption2Limitation/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

14. It can be seen that the common thread running through Section 4, whether it is prior to 1973, after the amendment in 1973, or after the amendment of 2000, is that excisable goods have to have a determination of “price” only “at the time of removal”. This basic feature of 18 Page 19 JUDGMENT Section 4 has never changed

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

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

14 of 24 Page 15 JUDGMENT Officer had 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

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)

disallowed by the Supreme Court in Bombay Tyre International Ltd. reported in 1983 (14) ELT 1896 SC. If one closely observes the definition of the term transaction value, it uses the terminology 'servicing'. It appears that the respondents are taking the benefit of this term 'servicing' for the purpose of adding to the assessable value, the expenses incurred

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