← All Phrases

“Section 29(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 29Section 29(2)8 judgments

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

Leading authorities on Section 29(2)

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 29(2)

M/S. Piaggio Vehicles Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 4, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 868/PUN/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.868/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Piaggio Vehicles Private Ltd., V The Assistant Sky One Corporate Park, S Commissioner Of Income Ground Floor, Survey Tax, Circle-4, Pune. No.239/02, Near Pune Airport, Pune – 411032. Pan: Aabcp1225G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Siddhesh Chaugule – Ar Revenue By Shri Vidya Ratan - Dr Date Of Hearing 18/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-13, Pune For Assessment Year 2015-16 Dated 06.10.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Refund Of Excess Taxes Paid On Dividend Distributed On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Hon'Ble Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Granting The Benefit Of Article 11 Of The India-

Section 115Section 2(24)Section 250Section 3Section 4

date of distribution or payment thereof. It appears that the transfer of profits of Petitioner to IDBI in terms of Section 29(2) of SIDBI Act entails payment by Petitioner to IDBI. This payment or distribution of Petitioner’s liquid assets constitutes dividend distributed by Petitioner out of its accumulated