Section 129 of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.244

Section 129 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 244 (Change of incumbent of an office) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 244 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 129 is Canara Housing Development Co. v. DCIT (49 Taxmann.com 98), cited in 283 of the 148 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 129

Canara Housing Development Co. v. DCIT
49 Taxmann.com 98 · 2014 · High Court
283
citing judgments

Proceedings under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act are not confined solely to incriminating material found during a search, and the Assessing Officer can assess total income for the relevant years.

P.M. Mohammed Meerakhan v. CIT
73 ITR 735 · 1969 · Supreme Court
58
citing judgments

The assessee bears the onus to prove the genuineness and voluntary nature of donations received, including corpus donations. Failure to discharge this burden allows the Assessing Officer to treat such donations as non-genuine or accommodation entries.

Sarla Handicrafts (P.) Ltd. v. Addl.CIT
124 TTJ 674 · 2009 · ITAT
55
citing judgments

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.

CIT v. United Glass Mfg. Co. Ltd.
28 Taxmann.com 429 · 2012 · Supreme Court
50
citing judgments

Club membership fees paid by a company for its employees are considered pure business expenses, allowable under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act.

CIT v. Smt. Leena Ramachandran
339 ITR 296 · 2011 · High Court
44
citing judgments

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.

Citation: CIT v. M. Yesodha
351 ITR 265 · 2013 · High Court
42
citing judgments
ITO v. Diza
255 ITR 573 · 2002 · High Court
42
citing judgments

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.

Smt. Manshi Mahendra Pitkar v. ITO 1(2), Thane
73 Taxmann.com 68 · 2016 · ITAT
41
citing judgments

A bank passbook alone does not constitute the books of account of an assessee for the purpose of the Income Tax Act.

CIT v. Union Bank of India
308 CTR 797 · 2019 · High Court
41
citing judgments

For banking companies, the machinery provisions of Section 115JB(2) of the Income Tax Act are unworkable due to a legal dichotomy created by the first proviso.

Charchit Agarwal v. ACIT
34 SOT 348 · 2009 · ITAT
33
citing judgments

A claim for exemption from taxability must be made in the original return under section 139(1) or a revised return under section 139(5). Any claim made outside these mandatory time limits, including during a section 153A assessment, is not allowable.

Judgments on Section 129

Samat Khimabhai Sisodiya, Veraval vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Junagadh

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1059/RJT/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Oct 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1059/Rjt/2026 [ "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 ] Samat Khimabhai Sisodiya, Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Prop. A One Transport Yamuna Junagadh, Gujarat-362001 Vs. Market, Junagadh Road, Near Byepass, Veraval, Gujarat-362266 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bkrps0894L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri R. D. Lalchandani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Ganesh Iyer, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/10/2026 12/10/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : :: Order :: Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nac) Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [In Short ‘Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)’], Dated 01.06.2026, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Act, Dated 28.12.2019. 2. When The Matter Was Called For Hearing, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee, At The Outset Submitted That The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Belatedly. The Ld. Counsel, Adverted My Attention To The Affidavit Filed In This Regard Citing Reasons For Condonation Of Delay & Urged For A Benign View & Sought Condonation Of Delay Of 7 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. However, Learned Dr For The Samat Khimabhai Sisodiya

For Appellant: Shri R. D. Lalchandani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Iyer, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 120(2)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Sundaram Home Finance Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-6(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1996/CHNY/2026[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Sept 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Ss Viswanethra Raviिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sundaram Home Finance Ltd, Income Tax Officer, 5Th Floor, Sundaram Towers, Corporate Ward-6(1), No.46, Whites Road, Royapettah, Chennai. Vs. Chennai – 600014 अपीलाथ" Appellant ""थ" Respondent Aadcs4826J Permanent Account Number Of Assessee: अपीलाथ" "ारा/Appellant Represented By: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan- Advocate ""थ" "ारा/Respondent Represented By: Mr.Madhan Kumar – Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing: 30.07.2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 23.09.2026 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Dated 03.02.2026 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Confirming The Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Is Contrary To Law, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Therefore Liable To Be Set Aside.

Section 14ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 275Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)

Anand Dilip Patel, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-1, Navsari

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee, are allowed

ITA 271/SRT/2026[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Aug 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 270 & 271/Srt/2026 [ "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 ] Anand Dilip Patel, Income Tax Officer, C/O Kumar Shah, 702 Vs. Ward-1, Anupam Heights, Swapnalok Complex, Moti Beside Someshwara Enclave, Chovisi, Nr. Junathana, Abhva B.O, Surat, Gujarat-395007 Navsari, Gujarat-431601 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aunpp8431D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri P M Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By : Shri Ajay Uke, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19/05/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/08/2026 :: Order :: Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years 2010–11 & 2011–12, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1) (C) Of The Act. 2. Since, These Penalty Appeals Related To The Same Assessee, Therefore These Appeals Have Been Clubbed & Heard Together & Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. The Facts As Well As Grounds Of

For Appellant: Shri P M Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Anand Dilip Patel, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-1, Navsari

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee, are allowed

ITA 270/SRT/2026[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Aug 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 270 & 271/Srt/2026 [ "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 ] Anand Dilip Patel, Income Tax Officer, C/O Kumar Shah, 702 Vs. Ward-1, Anupam Heights, Swapnalok Complex, Moti Beside Someshwara Enclave, Chovisi, Nr. Junathana, Abhva B.O, Surat, Gujarat-395007 Navsari, Gujarat-431601 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aunpp8431D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri P M Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By : Shri Ajay Uke, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19/05/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/08/2026 :: Order :: Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years 2010–11 & 2011–12, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1) (C) Of The Act. 2. Since, These Penalty Appeals Related To The Same Assessee, Therefore These Appeals Have Been Clubbed & Heard Together & Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. The Facts As Well As Grounds Of

For Appellant: Shri P M Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)