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 801clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai254Delhi172Ahmedabad60Jaipur59Kolkata54Bangalore48Chennai40Allahabad39Visakhapatnam25Hyderabad23Pune23Nagpur18Guwahati18Lucknow16Chandigarh15Rajkot13Indore11Surat10Jodhpur10Ranchi10SC6Panaji3Jabalpur1Agra1Amritsar1Cochin1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1Dehradun1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Patna1

Key Topics

Section 80H6Section 11A3Exemption3Deduction3Section 35L2Section 5A2Penalty2

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KARNAL vs. M/S CARPET INDIA.PANIPAT(HARYANA)

C.A. No.-004590-004590 - 2018Supreme Court27 Apr 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL

Section 80H

801/- as Duty Draw Back (DDB) and claimed deduction under Section 80HHC amounting to Rs. 1,57,68,742/- out of the total profits of Rs. 1,97,10,927/- at par with the direct exporter. (c) On scrutiny, the Assessing Officer, vide order dated 25.02.2004, allowed the deduction under Section 80HHC to the tune

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 38A
Section 4

disallowed only because they are not payable at the time of each invoice or deducted from the invoice price.” (at para 1) 16. In the second judgment in Government of India v. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd., 1995 (77) ELT 433 (SC), what has been held is as follows:- “Year Ending Discount and Prompt Payment Discount: What is called 'Year-ending

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

disallowing the benefit of exemption notification No. 175/86 CE to noticee No. 1" However, in the said proceedings, penalties of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- were imposed against the Respondent and the said Hira Industries Limited, respectively. An appeal thereagainst was preferred by the Respondent to the extent of demand confirmed on the ground of alleged related person

ASSOCIATED BANKING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY-1

- 0Supreme Court22 Oct 1964
For Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY-1
Section 10(2)

801 G-H] M. P. Venkatachalapathy Iyer v. Commissioner of Income- tax, Madras. (1951) 20 I.T.R. 363, approved. JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 956 of 1963. Appeals from the judgment and order dated April 22, 1960, of the Bombay High Court in Income-tax Reference No. 72 of’ 1957. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, J. B. Dadachanji

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

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI vs. M/S. AUSTRALIAN FOODS INDIA PRIVATE LTD

The appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside, leaving the

C.A. No.-002826-002826 - 2006Supreme Court14 Jan 2013
Section 35L

disallowed. 5. Upon consideration of the explanation furnished by the assessee, the Commissioner inter-alia came to the conclusion (relevant for the controversy at hand) that unless the specified goods or the packaging in which these are sold, bear the brand name or the logo, prescribed S.S.I. exemption cannot be denied. Thus, the Commissioner held that since there was neither