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.

5 results for “disallowance”+ Section 5Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai77Delhi42Chennai32Hyderabad20Pune19Bangalore19Kolkata19Jaipur18Raipur17Surat17Indore16Ranchi14Panaji7Ahmedabad5SC5Lucknow2Cochin2Chandigarh2Rajkot2Jodhpur2Nagpur1Cuttack1Amritsar1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1

Key Topics

Section 325Exemption3Deduction3Section 5A2Section 36(1)(iii)2

COMMNR.,CENTRAL EXCISE, MADRAS vs. M/S. ADISON & CO. LTD

C.A. No.-007906-007906 - 2002Supreme Court29 Aug 2016

Bench: Us Because Of An Order Dated 16.07.2008, By Which There Was A Reference To A Larger Bench In View Of The Importance Of The Questions Involved. 2. Civil Appeal No. 7906 Of 2002 Arises From The Judgment Dated 23.11.2000 Passed By The Madras High Court In R.C. No. 01 Of 1999. Civil Appeal No. 14689 Of 2015 Was Filed By The Revenue Against The Judgment Dated 26.11.2014 In Central Excise Appeal No. 21 Of 2009. Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 18426 Of 2015, 18423 Of 2015, 18425 Of 2015, 23722 Of 2015, 12282 Of 2016, 16142 Of 2016 & 16141 Of 2016 Are Filed Against The Judgment Of The Andhra Pradesh High Court In Central Excise Appeal Nos. 21 Of 2005, 9 Of 2005, 51 Of 2004, 10 Of 2005, 44 Of 2004, 38 Of 2004 & 18 Of 2005 Respectively. 3. Civil Appeal No. 8488 Of 2009 Is Filed Against The Judgment Dated 20.08.2008 Passed By The Bombay High 2

Section 11Section 4

disallowed only because they are not payable at the time of each invoice or deducted from the invoice price. It is the submission of the Assessee that the turnover discount is known to the dealer even at the time of clearance which has also been upheld by this Court. It is clear from the above that the Assessee is entitled

UNISON ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIOINER, CENTRAL EXCISE, NOIDA

The appeals are dismissed

C.A. No.-006788-006789 - 2005Supreme Court13 Feb 2009

Bench: Dispatch From Their Factory & Stickers Bearing Uts/Tsn Were Being Affixed & These Sticker Bear The Words “Checked Sl. No. Do Not Remove This Sticker” & That The 2

Section 5A

disallowed the benefit of small scale exemption notification. It was submitted that the words UTS and TSN are not brand names but are the abbreviations of the name of the marketing companies which does not amount to use of the brand name. Stand of the department was as follows: It has not been controverted by the appellants that the excisable

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

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 the specified goods with a brand name or trade name (registered or not) of another person who is not eligible for the grant of exemption under this notification: Provided that nothing contained

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

disallowing the assessee’s claim for depreciation on roads and drains to the extent of Rs. 15,50,526. On appeal the C.I.T. (Appeals) allowed the assessee’s claim for depreciation. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the revenue. At the instance of the revenue on a reference under Section 256(1) the High Court answered the question against

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, LUCKNOW vs. BAZPUR CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR FACTORY LTD

In the result the appeals are allowed, the impugned

- 0Supreme Court01 May 1989
For Respondent: BAZPUR CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR FACTORY LTD
Section 36(1)(iii)

disallow- ance for the assessment year 1968-69 on the ground that Bye-law No. 50 did not provide for the refund of the amount standing to the credit of the members at any time before the payment of the loan to the Industrial Finance Corporation of India, that the loan was still outstanding on 30 June 1967, the last