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.

3 results for “disallowance”+ Section 301clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai882Delhi662Chennai181Bangalore162Ahmedabad114Kolkata106Pune93Jaipur85Indore60Cochin50Hyderabad47Surat40Allahabad37Rajkot35Chandigarh29Lucknow21Cuttack21Visakhapatnam14Nagpur14Panaji8Karnataka7Raipur6Jodhpur5Telangana5Patna3Amritsar3SC3Ranchi2Agra2Rajasthan1Guwahati1Jabalpur1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Calcutta1

Key Topics

Section 44C11Section 43B4Section 11A3Deduction3Penalty2

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (IT)-I, MUMBAI vs. M/S. AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK LTD

C.A. No.-008291-008291 - 2015Supreme Court15 Dec 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

Section 28Section 37(1)Section 44C

disallowance can be made under section 44C in the facts and circumstances of this case. That section 44C applies only when a foreign company operates through its branches in India is made clear even in the explanatory note appended to the Finance Bill, 1976. [...] The difficulties of the nature as stated in the said memorandum as well

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. DISTILLERS CO. LTD

The appeal is dismissed with costs

C.A. No.-001813-001813 - 2007Supreme Court05 Apr 2007
M/s. Distillers Co. Ltd
For Respondent:
Section 260ASection 43Section 43B

disallowed u/s 43 of the Act? Relying upon a decision of the said Court in Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. v. State of Karnataka passed in Writ Petition No. 5008 of 1991 disposed of on 5th September, 1991, the High Court held: (i) The amount in question was not a penalty; (ii) It was also not to be treated either

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

301) ELT 273 (SC). 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. In order to better appreciate the arguments on both the sides, it is necessary to set out Section 4 of the Central Excise and Salt Act as it obtained prior to the amendment made in 1973, the amendment made in 1973; and finally the amendment made