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 690clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai505Delhi419Chennai201Kolkata124Bangalore108Ahmedabad89Hyderabad70Jaipur46Surat43Pune37Lucknow28Indore24Chandigarh20Rajkot15Cochin15Guwahati9Karnataka8Cuttack7Raipur6Ranchi6Agra5Visakhapatnam5Jodhpur4Amritsar4Varanasi3SC3Uttarakhand1Patna1Nagpur1Jabalpur1Himachal Pradesh1Allahabad1

Key Topics

Section 876Section 69A5Penalty3Section 882Section 892Section 952

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JAIPUR vs. PRAKASH CHAND LUNIA (D) THR LRS

C.A. No.-007689-007690 - 2022Supreme Court24 Apr 2023

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

Section 104Section 112Section 135Section 271Section 69A

690 19.1 This Court was dealing with a loss suffered due to an embezzlement by an employee of the assessee. While interpreting Section 10(2) of the Old Act over a claim made for deduction, for which there was no specific provision, reliance was made on the accepted commercial practices and trading principles. Resultantly, it was held that the deduction

RENUKA DATLA vs. COMNR. OF INCOME TAX KARNATAKA

C.A. No.-004731-004731 - 2000Supreme Court
17 Dec 2002
For Respondent: CKoamrmniastsaikoane&rAonfr.Income Tax
Section 87Section 88Section 89Section 95

690/- vi) Unexplained amount received from Bombay: Rs.45,000/- vii) Unexplained investment in acquisition of 8000 shares in Duphar Interfran Ltd. Rs.80,000/- viii) Unexplained investment in acquisition of shares of M/s Techno Pharma Pvt. Ltd., Rs.1,25,000/- ix) Unexplained investment in acquisition of shares in M/s. V.R. Transports. Rs.24,000/-. The appellant also challenged the levy of interest

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