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

Thottiapatti Muthusamy Mohan, Namakkal vs. The Income Tax Officer, Circle-1, Namakkal

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1327/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1327/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Thottiapatti Muthusamy Mohan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 629, Salem Road, Circle 1, Namakkal 637 001. Namakkal. [Pan:Aldpm2174M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.03.2025 Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-13, Mumbai For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Raised 6 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer By Passing Exparte Order In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 194CSection 253(6)