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 35E(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai19Delhi14Kolkata14Ranchi12Jaipur11Chennai10Bangalore8Lucknow4Ahmedabad4SC3Indore3Cochin1Calcutta1

Key Topics

Section 353Section 35E(2)3Section 35E2Deduction2Disallowance2

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

RAJASTHAN STATE MINES & MINERALS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

C.A. No.-005327-005327 - 2008
Supreme Court
25 Aug 2008
Section 35ESection 35E(2)Section 37(1)

disallowed on the ground that assessee has not been able to prove that the expenses on development falls in the category of exploring, locating or providing deposits of any mineral so as to quality for deduction u/s 35E.” 3 The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal also took into consideration the application of the provisions of Section 35E(2

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

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

Section 35E(4) of the Act which was dismissed by the CEGAT by its order dated 22nd of July, 2002 holding that the order under challenge had merged in the earlier order dated 24th 7 January, 2002 passed by the Tribunal in the company’s appeal whereby disallowance of two of the eight deductions in dispute had been upheld