Section 29 of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.27

Section 29 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 27 (Manner of computing profits and gains of business or profession) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 27 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 29 is Saharanpur Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. CIT (194 ITR 294), cited in 35 of the 150 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 29

Saharanpur Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. CIT
194 ITR 294 · 1992 · Supreme Court
35
citing judgments

If the actual cost of an asset was wrongly assessed in earlier years, it can be recomputed and corrected in subsequent assessment years. Interest incurred before production on borrowed money for plant construction can be capitalized and added to the cost of fixed assets.

CIT v. Doom Dooma India Ltd.
310 ITR 392 · 2009 · Supreme Court
30
citing judgments

The 'written down value' (WDV) under Section 43(6)(b) is determined by depreciation that has been 'actually allowed', meaning it has been taken into account or granted and given effect to by the Income-tax Officer in computing taxable income.

ACIT v. Real Image Media Technologies P. Ltd.
114 ITD 573 · 2008 · ITAT
30
citing judgments

Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which requires certain statutory liabilities to be paid by a specific due date for allowability of deduction, does not apply to service tax if the service tax has not become payable due to non-receipt of payments from the service recipient. This is because section 43B refers to a "sum payable by the assessee".

CIT v. Abhishek Corporation
158 CTR 374 · 2000 · High Court
21
citing judgments

Only the profit embedded in on-money receipts, not the entire receipts, can be brought to tax.

9 (Punjab & Haryana) (iii) CIT vs. Banwari Lal Banshidhar (1998) 229 ITR 229 (All) (iv) CIT v. Bahubali Neminath Muttin
242 Taxmann 279 · High Court
20
citing judgments
Madeva Upendra Sinai v. Union of India
98 ITR 209 · 1975 · Supreme Court
19
citing judgments

The 'written-down value' of an asset for depreciation purposes is determined by subtracting the depreciation 'actually allowed' in previous years from the actual cost. The word 'actually' signifies a real, not speculative, allowance.

Commissioner of Income-tax v. Williamson Financial Services and Ors.
297 ITR 17 · 2008 · Supreme Court
17
citing judgments

The principles applied in CIT v. Williamson Financial Services [2008] 297 ITR 17 (SC) are not applicable to the present cases as the former dealt with deductions under Section 80HHC, which is part of Chapter VI-A (special deductions), distinct from deductions under Sections 30 to 43D.

CGT v. N.S. Getti Chettiar
82 ITR 599 · 1971 · Supreme Court
14
citing judgments

A partition of family property does not constitute a transfer, and therefore, no gift tax liability arises from an unequal partition where consideration is given in recognition of pre-existing rights.

CIT v. SMSL-UANRCL
372 ITR 429 · 2015 · High Court
11
citing judgments

A consortium may not be treated as an Association of Persons (AOP) depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, and if the income has been assessed in the hands of the assessee with corresponding TDS credit, the assessee may not have an obligation to deduct tax at source.

Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Marg Ltd.
2017 SCC OnLine MAD 37852 · 2017 · ITAT
11
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer must conclude that the assessee's books of account are incorrect, incomplete, or unreliable, and formally reject them, before proceeding to make an assessment based on their own estimation.

Judgments on Section 29

Dosch Pharmaceutucals Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, grounds of appeal of assessee are allowed

ITA 2088/MUM/2026[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal(Physicalhearing) Dosch Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle – 1(3)(1), Mumbai 15-C, Laxmi Industrial Estate, New Vs Room No. 540, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Link Road, Andheri West, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400053. Mumbai – 400020. [Pan: Aaacd2320F] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Jose Pulekkoden, Advocate, Ms. Nidhi N. Jain, Advocate & Noor Jahan Sheikh Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan,Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 13.05.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2026 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)Dated 31.12.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On Facts & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming 1 The Addition Of Rs. 14,26,898 Made By The Assessing Officer Under Section 37(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Impugned Amount Pertains To Slump Sale Consideration Offered To Tax Under 2 Section 50B Under The Head Capital Gains & Therefore The Provisions Of Section 37(1), Which Apply Only To Computation Of Business Income Under Sections 28 To 44, Are Not Applicable. 3. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Law In Not Adjudicating The Specific Legal Ground Raised By The Appellant Regarding The Inapplicability Of Section 37(1), Thereby Rendering The Order Bad In Law & Liable To Be Set Aside. 4. The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That Section 29 Mandates That Deductions Under Sections 30 To 43D (Including 4 Section 37) Are Applicable

Section 254(1)Section 29Section 30Section 37Section 37(1)Section 50B

Damodaram Suresh, Gobichettipalayam vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Erode

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2715/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2715/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Damodaran Suresh, The Income Tax Officer, Prop. Sumy Electronic, Vs. Ward-1(1), No.52, Main Road, Erode. Gobichettipalayam Tamil Nadu - 638 452. [Pan: Aijps3460M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.Girish Kumar, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Bipin, C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri (): The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Coimbatore-1 [Pcit] Dated 09.02.2024 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. There Is A Delay Of 198 Days In Filing This Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed Petition Along With Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating Damodaram Suresh :- 2 -: Therein The Reasons For Belated Filing Of The Appeal. On Perusal Of The Aforesaid Reasons In The Condonation Application, We Are Of The View That There Is Sufficient Cause For Belated Filing Of This Appeal. Hence, We Condone The Delay In Filing This Appeal & Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeals On Merits.

For Appellant: Mr.Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Bipin, C.N, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 4Section 40A(3)