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 253clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,466Delhi967Chennai292Bangalore228Kolkata202Indore123Chandigarh119Jaipur109Ahmedabad96Pune94Surat66Lucknow64Raipur53Allahabad50Hyderabad42Panaji36Amritsar32Rajkot30Cuttack29Telangana25Ranchi20Nagpur17Cochin16Guwahati13Agra12Karnataka12Varanasi12Jodhpur10Patna6SC6Visakhapatnam2Calcutta2Dehradun2Rajasthan1Punjab & Haryana1Orissa1Uttarakhand1Jabalpur1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 806Section 43B5Deduction3Section 352Exemption2

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS MARUTI UDYOG LTD.) vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI

The appeals are dismissed

C.A. No.-011923-011923 - 2018Supreme Court07 Feb 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN

Section 260ASection 43B

disallowing the claim of the   assessee.   On   appeal   to   the Tribunal,   the   Tribunal   held   that   the Gujarat   high   court’s   judgment   in Lakhanpal   National   Ltd.’s   case   [1986] 162   ITR   240   was   distinguishable   and confirmed the order of the Commissioner of  Income­tax.  On an  application  made under section 256(1) of the Act at the instance of the appellant­assessee

RAMNATH AND CO. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

C.A. No.-002506-002509 - 2020Supreme Court05 Jun 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

Section 80

253 dated 30.04.1979. It has been pointed out that Circular dated 23.12.1975 provided, inter alia, that in the case of a composite agreement which specified a consolidated amount as consideration for purposes which included matters outside the scope of Section 80-O, CBDT may not approve such an agreement for the purposes 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

disallowing the benefit of the notification to the Defibrillator thereby concurring with the view of the Technical Member. 11) This is how the matter has come up to this court in the form of present appeal filed by the appellant under Section 35 L(b) of the Civil Appeal Nos. 5523 & 6037 of 2004 Page 7 of 19 Page

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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) 2 vs. M/S MAHAGUN REALTORS (P) LTD

The appeal is allowed, in the above terms, without order on costs

C.A. No.-002716-002716 - 2022Supreme Court05 Apr 2022

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 276C

disallowed in the subsequent year, in the case of the then transferee company. The decision of the Delhi High Court, in Spice (supra), after discussing the decision in Saraswati Syndicate, went on to explain why assessing an amalgamating company, without framing the order in the name of the transferee company is fatal: “10. Section 481 of the Companies Act provides

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELGAUM vs. M/S. AKAY COSMETIC (P) LTD. HUMBLI

C.A. No.-000336-000336 - 2001Supreme Court01 Apr 2005
For Respondent: M/s Akay Cosmetics (P) Ltd
Section 35Section 4(4)(c)

section 35-L(b) of the Act. By judgment delivered by this Court today in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Belgaum v. M/s Akay Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. [Civil Appeal Nos.3792-3803 of 2000], this Court has partly allowed the department’s appeal. However, the order of remand on the question of "related person" during the period 4/91 to 3/93