NavdeepDingra v. CIT
56 Taxmann.com 67High Court2015#1216 most cited
What is NavdeepDingra v. CIT authority for?
The evidentiary value of a statement made under section 132(4) during a search, particularly if later retracted, is not conclusive and requires corroboration by other material to sustain additions to income.
94
judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.
Also referred to as
Navdeep Dingra v. CIT · section 132(4) statement · retracted statement · search and seizure assessment · undisclosed income · section 115BBE · evidentiary value confession · abatement of assessment · corroboration of evidence
Sections most often in play
Issues it is cited on
Judgments citing NavdeepDingra v. CIT
Showing 1–20 of 94 · Page 1 of 5