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.

7 results for “disallowance”+ Section 3(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai8,189Delhi7,712Chennai2,369Ahmedabad1,765Bangalore1,760Kolkata1,710Pune1,324Hyderabad1,262Jaipur1,163Cochin732Chandigarh671Indore666Surat658Raipur488Visakhapatnam463Rajkot451Nagpur369Lucknow334Amritsar288Cuttack244SC234Jodhpur206Panaji187Ranchi171Patna168Guwahati158Agra149Dehradun113Allahabad90Jabalpur85Varanasi28A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN7RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1

Key Topics

Section 80H7Section 43B5Section 11A4Section 44Deduction4Addition to Income3Exemption2Limitation/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. This order of the Assessing Officer was unsuccessfully challenged by the appellant as all the authorities upto the High Court upheld that order. This Court also, in the aforesaid judgment, concurred with the view taken by the courts below. Before this Court, specific reliance was placed on sub-section (3) of Section 80HHC and on that basis

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)

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 as defined in Section 4(3)(d) of said Act as forming part of value of Excisable goods

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

3) For the purpose of this Section,- (a) “assessee” means the person who is liable to pay the duty of excise under this Act and includes his agent; (b) persons shall be deemed to be “related” if- (i) they are inter-connected undertakings; (ii) they are relatives; (iii) amongst them the buyer is a relative and a distributor

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

The appeal stands disposed of in

C.A. No.-002558-002558 - 2005Supreme Court07 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

disallowance under S. 43B of the I.T. Act in respect of the vend fee of Rs. 22,87,512/- outstanding as a liability payable to the Government of Kerala as on the last day of the accounting year?” Section 43B of the Income Tax Act allows certain deductions only to be on actual payment. Section 43B reads as follows

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 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 of excisable goods falling under Chapter 85 and 90. From January 1997 onwards the appellant had been manufacturing and clearing two Civil Appeal Nos. 5523 & 6037 of 2004 Page 1 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