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 27clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,210Delhi3,102Chennai874Bangalore635Ahmedabad612Hyderabad574Jaipur519Kolkata499Pune315Raipur270Chandigarh268Indore239Surat202Rajkot163Amritsar132Cochin130Visakhapatnam127Lucknow112Nagpur96SC80Allahabad72Panaji56Guwahati54Patna49Cuttack40Ranchi39Agra36Jodhpur35Dehradun16Jabalpur11A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN5Varanasi4MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1

Key Topics

Section 11A4Section 44Exemption2Limitation/Time-bar2Deduction2Addition to Income2

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)

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 transaction value

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

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

27,71,326/- and imposed equivalent penalty under Section 11AC as well as further penalty of Rs.1 lakh. 6) Thereafter, the appellant filed an appeal before the CEGAT, Madras (now Chennai) against the order of the Commissioner Civil Appeal Nos. 5523 & 6037 of 2004 Page 4 of 19 Page 5 JUDGMENT mainly impressing upon the CEGAT that the Commissioner

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

27,483/- towards duty computed for the period of March 1997 to March, 2001 on volume discount. (c) Rs, 11,96,601/- towards duty computed for the period of March 97 to March, 2001 on Sales Tax deduction and (d) Rs. 4,99,117/- towards duty on cash discount for the period of July 2000 to March, 2001 (ii) confirm

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)

disallowed the aforesaid claim to the extent of Rs.16,39,010/-. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The CIT (Appeals) set aside the order of the Assessing Officer holding that the interest paid by the assessee of which deduction was C.A. No. 514/2008 2 Page 3 JUDGMENT claimed, on the facts

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