“Section 129(1)”
The decision most relied on for Section 129(1) is Madras in Venkatakrishna Rice Co. v. CIT (163 ITR 129), cited in 95 judgments on BharatTax.
Leading authorities on Section 129(1)
The expression 'prejudicial to the interests of the revenue' under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act involves acts or orders that are subversive of the administration of revenue. This requires a grievous error in the Assessing Officer's order that might set a bad trend or pattern for similar assessments.
For an electronic record to be admissible as evidence in income tax proceedings, all conditions prescribed under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, must be strictly fulfilled. The provisions of Section 65B of the Evidence Act and Section 132(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, operate in distinct fields regarding the admissibility of evidence.
CBDT circulars, instructions, or directions issued under Section 119 cannot override or detract from the provisions of the Income-tax Act, as a delegated authority lacks the power to amend law enacted by Parliament.
The assessing officer can proceed with a search and seizure assessment under section 153A even if the original return was filed in response to a notice under section 142(1). Surrender of income during a search is a key factor in such assessments.
Losses from foreign exchange forward contracts, when incidental to an assessee's regular business and undertaken to safeguard business interests, are treated as business losses and not speculative losses under section 43(5).
Club membership fees paid by a company for its employees are considered pure business expenses, allowable under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act.
The assessee is entitled to a deduction of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) on borrowed funds utilized for acquiring shares, provided the shares are held as stock-in-trade as part of a share trading business.
For an addition under Section 68, the assessee must satisfactorily explain the source of depositors and their creditworthiness; mere receipt of funds via banking channels or furnishing particulars is not conclusive proof of genuineness.
