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 2(22)(e)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,136Delhi2,483Chennai944Bangalore652Ahmedabad610Jaipur517Kolkata464Hyderabad369Indore278Pune248Raipur223Chandigarh222Surat193Rajkot158Cochin150Visakhapatnam143Nagpur119Lucknow98SC91Amritsar67Guwahati58Cuttack58Agra56Ranchi50Panaji50Jodhpur49Allahabad48Patna31Dehradun21Jabalpur20Varanasi14A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN6MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1

Key Topics

Section 80H7Section 43B5Section 11A4Section 44Deduction3Addition to Income2Exemption2Limitation/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

e) "wholesale trade" means sales to dealers, industrial consumers, Government, local authorities and other buyers, who or which purchase their requirements otherwise than in retail.” 13. Section 4, as it reads after the amendment of 2000, is as follows:- “4. Valuation of excisable goods for purposes of charging of duty of excise.- (1) Where under this Act, the duty

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, KERALA vs. M/S. TRAVANCORE SUGARS & CHEMICALS LTD

The appeal stands disposed of in

C.A. No.-002558-002558 - 2005Supreme Court
07 May 2015

Bench: The Expiry Of The Relevant Previous Year. On 30.04.1993, The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment For The Year 1990-1991 & Inter Alia Confirmed Disallowance Of The Vend Fee. Against This, The Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Who, By His Order Dated 24.05.1993, Deleted The Disallowance Under Section 43B & Allowed The Appeal Of The Respondent-Assessee. Aggrieved By The Said Order, The Revenue Preferred An C. A. No. 2558/ 2005 1

Section 256(1)Section 28Section 36Section 43B

E N T R. F. NARIMAN, J. The respondent-assessee is engaged in the manufacture and sale of foreign liquor and sugar. The assessee filed its return of income for assessment year 1990-1991 declaring an income of Rs. 15,84,398/-. The assessee had itself shown that a vend fee of Rs. 22,87,512/- was disallowable under Section

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

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

2 (2007) 9 SCR 831 Civil Appeal No. 8912 of 2003 Page 7 of 24 Page 8 JUDGMENT business, but there was profit from the business done within the country and on adjustment of loss from the export business against the profits from the business in India, in the balance sheet, it was still profit resulting into positive income

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)

E N T A.K. SIKRI, J. The question of law which arises for consideration in all these appeals is identical, which is the following one; Whether the pre-delivery inspection charges (for short 'PDI') and after sales service charges (for short 'ASS') are to be included in the assessable value? 2. For the sake of convenience, however, we take note

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

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

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 23.07.1996 and Notification No.4/97 dated 01.03.97 respectively to the appellant. 2) The appellant herein is engaged in the manufacture

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

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

E N T A.K. SIKRI, J. The appellant-assessee is engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn which is 100% Export Oriented Undertaking (EOU) constituted as per Export and Import Policy 1997-2002. During the period August, 2000 to March, 2001, it had cleared the aforesaid cotton yarn made to Domestic Tariff Area (DTA). While clearing these goods, the appellant