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 4(4)(d)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai19,595Delhi10,156Chennai6,434Bangalore5,306Kolkata4,374Ahmedabad3,436Jaipur1,652Hyderabad1,473Cochin1,212Pune1,175Indore1,046Surat925Chandigarh603Visakhapatnam572Rajkot522Cuttack508Raipur454Nagpur449Lucknow447Karnataka319Panaji238Amritsar230Jodhpur210Ranchi163Agra163Allahabad140SC136Patna119Guwahati111Jabalpur103Calcutta83Telangana81Dehradun68Kerala65Varanasi59Punjab & Haryana17Orissa8A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN7Rajasthan5Himachal Pradesh5A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1

Key Topics

Section 80H7Section 43B5Section 11A4Section 44Deduction4Addition to Income3Exemption2Limitation/Time-bar2

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)

Section 4(3)(d) of said Act as forming part of value of Excisable goods are in fact the expenses/deductions specifically disallowed

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

Section 4(2) is in terms replaced by Rule 5 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. 19 Page 20 JUDGMENT 15. Post 1973, this Court has in two of its decisions, namely, in Union of India v. Bombay Tyre International Limited, 1984 (17) ELT 329 (SC), clearly held as follows:- “Trade Discounts

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

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

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

D G M E N T A.K. SIKRI, J. What is the correct method of computation of deductions under Section 80HHC(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the given facts and circumstances, is the question which needs an answer in the present appeal. 2) The given facts and circumstances, as they appear on record, are stated

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)

D G M E N T A. K. SIKRI, J. The present appeal preferred by the assessee pertains to the Assessment Year 1988-1989. In the income tax return filed by the assessee for the aforesaid Assessment year, the assessee, inter alia, claimed deduction of interest paid on borrowed sums from Bank under the provisions of Section

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

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

D G M 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

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

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

D G M 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