← All Phrases

“Section 2(29)”

Section References (mined)Section 2Section 2(29)82 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 2(29) is CIT v. Sarkar Builders (375 ITR 392), cited in 79 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 2(29)

CIT v. Sarkar Builders
375 ITR 392 · 2015 · Supreme Court
79
citing judgments

An assessee should not be prejudiced by differences in accounting treatment if accounting principles are duly followed and the issue is revenue neutral, as hypothetical income cannot be subjected to tax.

CIT v. Citi Financial Consumer Finance Ltd.
335 ITR 29 · 2011 · High Court
78
citing judgments

Customer acquisition costs and advertisement expenditures are treated as revenue expenditures, not deferred expenditures, as there is no general concept of deferred expenditure for such items under Income Tax Law.

Tek Ram v. CIT
357 ITR 133 · 2013 · Supreme Court
44
citing judgments

When relevant documents or additional evidence have a direct bearing on an issue, they may be allowed to be produced or admitted at the appellate stage, potentially leading to a de novo adjudication by the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

CIT v. Kum. Satya Setia
143 ITR 486 · 1983 · High Court
23
citing judgments

An appellate authority has the discretion to allow the production of additional evidence if it is required to pass orders or for any substantial cause, which must be exercised judicially.

29 of the Rules. In R.S.S. Shanmugam Pillai and Sons. v. CIT
95 ITR 109 · 1974 · High Court
22
citing judgments

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has broad discretion to admit or reject documents at the appellate stage. This discretion must be exercised judiciously, and if documents are relevant to the issue at hand, the Tribunal can admit them, consider them, or remit the matter to lower authorities.

DCIT v. Manish M Chheda
29 SOT 138 · 2009 · ITAT
17
citing judgments

Section 28(iv) cannot be applied to tax a sum in the hands of partners if no benefit or perquisite arises to them in the course of business. An increase in a partner's capital due to revaluation of firm assets lacks nexus with the business and is not taxable under Section 28(iv).

CIT v. Prabhawati Gupta
231 ITR 188 · 1998 · High Court
14
citing judgments

Any assessment or order passed in the name of a deceased person is void ab initio. The legal representatives of the deceased must be brought on record before any such proceedings are completed.

CIT v. Rockman Cycle Industries (P.) Ltd.
331 ITR 401 · 2011 · High Court
14
citing judgments

Tax authorities must assess business expenditure from the perspective of a prudent businessman, not their own viewpoint, when determining if it was wholly and exclusively for business purposes.

Judgments citing Section 2(29)

Pratima Reddy Muthu, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-14(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1310/HYD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1310/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2010-2011 Pratima Reddy Muthu, Hyderabad – 500 034. The Acit, Circle-14(1), Vs. Hyderabad – 500 004. Telangana. Pan Aaopm8335J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri Yogesh K Jagia & Sri Amit Sood, Advocates. राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24.12.2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Sri Yogesh K Jagia And Sri Amit Sood, AdvocatesFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 159(1)Section 159(6)Section 171(1)Section 2(11)Section 2(29)Section 250Section 28

Appeal) erred in passing impugned order by failing to take countenance of section 159(1) of Act making legal representative, as defined in section 2(29) of Act, liable to pay tax as if the deceased is alive. On the contrary, in the impugned order, assessment is upheld by deeming ... appellant. 4) That Ld. CIT (Appeal), while passing impugned order upholding assessment order, failed to appreciate that determination of legal representative under section 2(29) of Income Tax Act, 1961 read with section 2(11) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 is sine qua non for completion of assessment. In absence