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.

10 results for “disallowance”+ Section 150clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,474Delhi1,188Bangalore537Chennai482Ahmedabad291Kolkata281Jaipur271Hyderabad171Surat111Chandigarh111Pune110Indore108Cochin98Allahabad63Raipur57Lucknow56Rajkot47Nagpur43Cuttack41Karnataka37Calcutta37Amritsar37Visakhapatnam35Guwahati25Ranchi18SC10Patna10Jodhpur9Panaji9Varanasi7Jabalpur7Dehradun5Agra3Telangana3Kerala2Punjab & Haryana2Rajasthan2

Key Topics

Section 37(1)5Section 325Section 353Exemption3Deduction3Section 42Disallowance2

M/S APEX LABORATORIES P. LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT II

The appeal is dismissed without order on costs

C.A. No.-001554-001554 - 2022Supreme Court22 Feb 2022

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 142(1)Section 37(1)

disallow an assessee from claiming a tax benefit for its participation in an illegal activity. Though the memorandum to the Finance Bill, 1998 elucidated the ambit of Explanation 1 to include “protection money, extortion, hafta, bribes, etc.”, yet, ipso facto, by no means is the embargo envisaged restricted to those examples. It is but logical that when acceptance of freebies

M/S. SIDDACHALAM EXPORTS PRIVATE LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE DELHI-III

The appeal is allowed; the

C.A. No.-000810-000810 - 2007Supreme Court01 Apr 2011
Section 108
Section 110
Section 114
Section 130

disallowed on the ground of mis-declaration of value of the goods entered for exportation. 2. The facts, material for adjudication of the present appeal, may be stated thus: The appellant viz. M/s Siddachalam Exports Pvt. Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as “the exporter”) was engaged in the exports of ready-made garments, engineering goods, handicrafts, woollen garments, leather goods

ENGINEERING ANALYSIS CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

C.A. No.-008733-008734 - 2018Supreme Court02 Mar 2021

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

section 30 of the Copyright Act, which transfers an interest in all or any of the rights contained in sections 14(a) and 14(b) of the Copyright Act, but is a “licence” which imposes restrictions or conditions for the use of computer software. Thus, it cannot be said that any of the EULAs that we are concerned with

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI vs. M/S. PEARL DRINKS LTD

C.A. No.-002059-002060 - 2003Supreme Court06 Jul 2010
Section 35Section 4

150 ELT 661) affirmed the said disallowance except for two items. The effect of the said disallowance had not according to the Board been taken into consideration by the adjudicating authority while granting the deductions claimed by the respondent-company. 8. In compliance with the order passed by the CBEC the Commissioner of Central Excise preferred an appeal under Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(CENTRAL) vs. M/S. GWALIOR RAYON SILK MFG.(WVG.)CO.LTD

The appeal is partly allowed

C.A. No.-002916-002916 - 1980Supreme Court29 Apr 1992
For Respondent: GWALIOR RAYON SILK MANUFACTURING CO. LTD
Section 256(1)Section 256(2)Section 32

disallowed the aforesaid claims, the assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who dismissed the appeals. On further appeal the Tribunal allowed the claims and depreciation on the roads as well as development rebate in regard to the transport viz., tractor, trailer etc. The Revenue filed an application under Section 256(1) of the Income

MANSAROVAR COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI

C.A. No.-005769-005769 - 2022Supreme Court10 Apr 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

Section 26Section 6(3)

disallowed). Separate penalty proceedings were initiated under sections 271(1)(a). 271(1)(c), 273/274 and 271-B of the Act. 2.12 The assessees then preferred appeals before the CIT(A). Subsequently on 08th December, 2000, the writ petitions filed by the assessees came to be dismissed by the High Court as the respective assessees moved the Appellate Authority prescribed

KIRLOSKAR BROS. LTD. vs. COMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE

C.A. No.-006938-006938 - 1999Supreme Court07 Mar 2005
For Respondent: Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune
Section 4Section 4(1)Section 4(4)(c)

Section 4 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (in short the ‘Act’) for the compressors manufactured by it. It also filed price list in Part II for the same kind of compressors showing a lesser price of Rs. 150 of assessable value per compressor than in the Part I price list for sales to alleged bulk buyers. Notice

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR vs. M/S. HIRA CEMENT

Appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside and the

C.A. No.-004424-004424 - 2004Supreme Court02 Feb 2006
For Respondent: M/s. Hira Cement
Section 35LSection 5ASection 6

150 tonnes per day. As a SSI unit, the Respondent herein claimed exemption from payment of excise duty in terms of a notification dated 28.2.1993. The said notification was issued under Section 5A of the Act; paragraph 4 whereof reads as under: "4. The exemption contained in this notification shall not apply to the specified goods where a manufacturer affixes

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

C.A. No.-021762-021762 - 2017Supreme Court19 Oct 2022

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 12AA(1) of the IT Act, on 18.05.1979 and is engaged in the activity of promotion of the export of all kind of ready-made garments, knitwear, and garments made of leather, jute and hemp. It does not per se engage in any activity for profit, and its mandate is to ensure that Indian apparel manufacturers, are given forums

2TATE BANK OF PATIALA, PATIALA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA

The appeals are allowed

C.A. No.-004270-004273 - 1996Supreme Court15 Mar 1996
For Respondent: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,PATIALA

disallowed. The assessee has filed special leave petitions in this Court directly against the aforesaid order of the Appellate Tribunal. 4. Special leave petition (C) No. 27551 of 1995, relating to the same assessee and involving consideration of the same question, relates to the assessment year 1985-86. The Appellate Tribunal finally decided against the assessee following the earlier decision