← All Phrases

“statement under section 132(4)”

Search & SeizureSection 132(4)Section 132(4)692 judgments

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7844/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2024-25
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

also in view of:\nThe Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Sunil Aggarwal (ITA 224/2003,\ndated 02.11.2015) held:\nA statement under Section 132(4) may have evidentiary value;\nHowever, once retracted, it cannot be relied upon in isolation;\nThe Assessing Officer must examine the explanation with\nreference ... According to him,\nthe said retraction did not dilute the evidentiary value of the\ncategorical admission made by the Assessee in his statement\nunder Section 132(4) of the Act. He submitted that the addition\nof Rs.86 lakhs solely on the basis of the said retracted statement\nas, therefore, permissible

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7843/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2023-24
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

also in view of:\nThe Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Sunil Aggarwal (ITA 224/2003,\ndated 02.11.2015) held:\nA statement under Section 132(4) may have evidentiary value;\nHowever, once retracted, it cannot be relied upon in isolation;\nThe Assessing Officer must examine the explanation with\nreference ... According to him,\nthe said retraction did not dilute the evidentiary value of the\ncategorical admission made by the Assessee in his statement\nunder Section 132(4) of the Act. He submitted that the addition\nof Rs.86 lakhs solely on the basis of the said retracted statement\nas, therefore, permissible

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7842/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

also in view of: The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Sunil Aggarwal (ITA 224/2003, dated 02.11.2015) held:  A statement under Section 132(4) may have evidentiary value; 6 ITA-5515/Del/2025 & 13 others  However, once retracted, it cannot be relied upon in isolation;  The Assessing Officer must ... According to him, the said retraction did not dilute the evidentiary value of the categorical admission made by the Assessee in his statement under Section 132(4) of the Act. He submitted that the addition of Rs.86 lakhs solely on the basis of the said retracted statement as, therefore, permissible

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7841/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2021-22
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

also in view of:\nThe Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Sunil Aggarwal (ITA 224/2003,\ndated 02.11.2015) held:\n➤ A statement under Section 132(4) may have evidentiary value;\nHowever, once retracted, it cannot be relied upon in isolation;\nThe Assessing Officer must examine the explanation with\nreference ... According to him,\nthe said retraction did not dilute the evidentiary value of the\ncategorical admission made by the Assessee in his statement\nunder Section 132(4) of the Act. He submitted that the addition\nof Rs.86 lakhs solely on the basis of the said retracted statement\nas, therefore, permissible

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7840/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

also in view of: The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Sunil Aggarwal (ITA 224/2003, dated 02.11.2015) held:  A statement under Section 132(4) may have evidentiary value; 6 ITA-5515/Del/2025 & 13 others  However, once retracted, it cannot be relied upon in isolation;  The Assessing Officer must ... According to him, the said retraction did not dilute the evidentiary value of the categorical admission made by the Assessee in his statement under Section 132(4) of the Act. He submitted that the addition of Rs.86 lakhs solely on the basis of the said retracted statement as, therefore, permissible

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7839/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2019-20
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

also in view of:\nThe Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Sunil Aggarwal (ITA 224/2003,\ndated 02.11.2015) held:\nA statement under Section 132(4) may have evidentiary value;\nHowever, once retracted, it cannot be relied upon in isolation;\nThe Assessing Officer must examine the explanation with\nreference ... According to him,\nthe said retraction did not dilute the evidentiary value of the\ncategorical admission made by the Assessee in his statement\nunder Section 132(4) of the Act. He submitted that the addition\nof Rs.86 lakhs solely on the basis of the said retracted statement\nas, therefore, permissible

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7838/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel andFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

also in view of:\nThe Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Sunil Aggarwal (ITA 224/2003,\ndated 02.11.2015) held:\nA statement under Section 132(4) may have evidentiary value;\nHowever, once retracted, it cannot be relied upon in isolation;\nThe Assessing Officer must examine the explanation with\nreference ... According to him,\nthe said retraction did not dilute the evidentiary value of the\ncategorical admission made by the Assessee in his statement\nunder Section 132(4) of the Act. He submitted that the addition\nof Rs.86 lakhs solely on the basis of the said retracted statement\nas, therefore, permissible

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -05 , DELHI

ITA 5521/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

also in view of: The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Sunil Aggarwal (ITA 224/2003, dated 02.11.2015) held:  A statement under Section 132(4) may have evidentiary value; 6 ITA-5515/Del/2025 & 13 others  However, once retracted, it cannot be relied upon in isolation;  The Assessing Officer must ... According to him, the said retraction did not dilute the evidentiary value of the categorical admission made by the Assessee in his statement under Section 132(4) of the Act. He submitted that the addition of Rs.86 lakhs solely on the basis of the said retracted statement as, therefore, permissible

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

ITA 5520/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2023-24
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

also in view of:\nThe Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Sunil Aggarwal (ITA 224/2003,\ndated 02.11.2015) held:\n➤ A statement under Section 132(4) may have evidentiary value;\nHowever, once retracted, it cannot be relied upon in isolation;\nThe Assessing Officer must examine the explanation with\nreference ... According to him,\nthe said retraction did not dilute the evidentiary value of the\ncategorical admission made by the Assessee in his statement\nunder Section 132(4) of the Act. He submitted that the addition\nof Rs.86 lakhs solely on the basis of the said retracted statement\nas, therefore, permissible

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

ITA 5519/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2022-23
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

also in view of:\nThe Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Sunil Aggarwal (ITA 224/2003,\ndated 02.11.2015) held:\nA statement under Section 132(4) may have evidentiary value;\nHowever, once retracted, it cannot be relied upon in isolation;\nThe Assessing Officer must examine the explanation with\nreference ... According to him,\nthe said retraction did not dilute the evidentiary value of the\ncategorical admission made by the Assessee in his statement\nunder Section 132(4) of the Act. He submitted that the addition\nof Rs.86 lakhs solely on the basis of the said retracted statement\nas, therefore, permissible

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 05, DELHI

ITA 5518/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2021-22
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

also in view of:\nThe Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Sunil Aggarwal (ITA 224/2003,\ndated 02.11.2015) held:\nA statement under Section 132(4) may have evidentiary value;\nHowever, once retracted, it cannot be relied upon in isolation;\nThe Assessing Officer must examine the explanation with\nreference ... According to him,\nthe said retraction did not dilute the evidentiary value of the\ncategorical admission made by the Assessee in his statement\nunder Section 132(4) of the Act. He submitted that the addition\nof Rs.86 lakhs solely on the basis of the said retracted statement\nas, therefore, permissible

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

ITA 5517/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2020-21
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

also in view of:\nThe Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Sunil Aggarwal (ITA 224/2003,\ndated 02.11.2015) held:\n➤ A statement under Section 132(4) may have evidentiary value;\nHowever, once retracted, it cannot be relied upon in isolation;\nThe Assessing Officer must examine the explanation with\nreference ... According to him,\nthe said retraction did not dilute the evidentiary value of the\ncategorical admission made by the Assessee in his statement\nunder Section 132(4) of the Act. He submitted that the addition\nof Rs.86 lakhs solely on the basis of the said retracted statement\nas, therefore, permissible

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 05, DELHI

ITA 5516/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2019-20
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

also in view of:\nThe Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Sunil Aggarwal (ITA 224/2003,\ndated 02.11.2015) held:\nA statement under Section 132(4) may have evidentiary value;\nHowever, once retracted, it cannot be relied upon in isolation;\nThe Assessing Officer must examine the explanation with\nreference ... According to him,\nthe said retraction did not dilute the evidentiary value of the\ncategorical admission made by the Assessee in his statement\nunder Section 132(4) of the Act. He submitted that the addition\nof Rs.86 lakhs solely on the basis of the said retracted statement\nas, therefore, permissible

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 05, DELHI

ITA 5515/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2018-19
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

also in view of:\nThe Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Sunil Aggarwal (ITA 224/2003,\ndated 02.11.2015) held:\nA statement under Section 132(4) may have evidentiary value;\nHowever, once retracted, it cannot be relied upon in isolation;\nThe Assessing Officer must examine the explanation with\nreference ... According to him,\nthe said retraction did not dilute the evidentiary value of the\ncategorical admission made by the Assessee in his statement\nunder Section 132(4) of the Act. He submitted that the addition\nof Rs.86 lakhs solely on the basis of the said retracted statement\nas, therefore, permissible

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BRGD SPONGE & IRON PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal\nof the assessee is allowed

ITA 1966/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2016-17
Section 115JSection 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

from examining the explanation\noffered by the assessee with reference to the books of account produced\nbefore him. Although, a statement under section 132(4) of the Act carries\nmuch greater weight than the statement made under section 133A of the\nAct, but a retracted statement even under section 132

BRGD SPONGE & IRON PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal\nof the assessee is allowed

ITA 1403/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2016-2017
Section 115JSection 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

from examining the explanation\noffered by the assessee with reference to the books of account produced\nbefore him. Although, a statement under section 132(4) of the Act carries\nmuch greater weight than the statement made under section 133A of the\nAct, but a retracted statement even under section 132

MSN LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 2304/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 270A

{ "clean_text": "ITA Nos 2304 and 2305 of 2025 MSN Laboratories P Ltd\n\nआयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ\nIN

VILAS POLYMER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1884/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1876 & 1884/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22) M/S. Vilas Polymer (P) Ltd Vs. Dy.Cit Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan:Aaacv9854A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M. These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Are Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad, Both Dated 31/10/2025, For The Asst. Years 2020-21 & 2021-22 Respectively. Since Identical Issues Are Involved In These Two Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Common Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

years. The incriminating material found during the course of search were confronted to Shri Ramesh Kumar Sanaka, Sr. Accounts Manager and a statement under section 132(4) of the Act has been recorded. In his statement, of Shri Ramesh Kumar Sanaka, Sr. Accounts Manager explained that the transactions recorded

VILAS POLYMER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1876/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1876 & 1884/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22) M/S. Vilas Polymer (P) Ltd Vs. Dy.Cit Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan:Aaacv9854A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M. These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Are Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad, Both Dated 31/10/2025, For The Asst. Years 2020-21 & 2021-22 Respectively. Since Identical Issues Are Involved In These Two Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Common Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

years. The incriminating material found during the course of search were confronted to Shri Ramesh Kumar Sanaka, Sr. Accounts Manager and a statement under section 132(4) of the Act has been recorded. In his statement, of Shri Ramesh Kumar Sanaka, Sr. Accounts Manager explained that the transactions recorded

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. ANKUR ANAND, BAREILLY

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

ITA 337/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyit(Ss) A Nos.336 & 337/Lkw/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Ankur Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Agppa4219C (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Ss)A No.334/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Mohit Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Abupa3002H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Kumar, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

search I.T(SS).A. Nos. 336 & 337/LKW/2025 IT(SS).A. No.334/LKW/2025 6 proceedings in the case of the assessee. and assessee’s statement under section 132(4) of the Act was also recorded on this issue. 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case ... found in digital form were found and seized during the search proceedings in the case of the assessee, and assessees statement under section 132(4) of the Act was also recorded on this issue. 4. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case

Showing 1–20 of 692 · Page 1 of 35

...