← All Phrases

“Section 132(4)”

Section References (mined)Section 132Section 132(4)5,206 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 132(4) is Pr. CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. (149 Taxmann.com 399), cited in 2,379 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 132(4)

Pr. CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd.
149 Taxmann.com 399 · 2023 · Supreme Court
2,379
citing judgments

An assessment under section 153A is without jurisdiction if there is an absence of incriminating material for an unabated assessment year.

Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE
281 CTR 241 · 2015 · Supreme Court
1,335
citing judgments

An assessee must be given an opportunity to cross-examine third parties whose statements are relied upon for adverse findings. Failure to provide this opportunity is a serious flaw rendering the order a nullity.

Pr. CIT v. Meeta Gutgutia
395 ITR 526 · 2017 · High Court
1,226
citing judgments

In search assessments under Section 153A, additions to income are permissible only if incriminating material is found during the search; in the absence of such material, completed assessments cannot be disturbed. A statement recorded under Section 132(4) and later retracted may not, on its own, constitute sufficient incriminating evidence for making additions.

CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows
73 Taxmann.com 248 · 2016 · Supreme Court
953
citing judgments

A notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether penalty proceedings are for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Such lack of specificity vitiates the penalty proceedings.

PCIT v. Best Infrastructure (India) (P.) Ltd.
397 ITR 82 · 2017 · High Court
786
citing judgments

A statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, does not by itself constitute incriminating material for making additions to income.

McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO
154 ITR 148 · 1985 · Supreme Court
741
citing judgments

The Supreme Court held that while legitimate tax planning is permissible, transactions structured as a "colourable device" or "subterfuge" solely to avoid tax are impermissible. It mandates a judicial shift to look beyond the form to the substance of a transaction, allowing the lifting of the corporate veil in tax evasion arrangements.

Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala
91 ITR 18 · 1973 · Supreme Court
666
citing judgments

Admissions, whether made through entries in account books or statements, are important pieces of evidence but are not conclusive. An assessee has the right to demonstrate that an admission made by them is incorrect or can be retracted.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal
290 CTR 263 · 2016 · High Court
583
citing judgments

Assessment based solely on a statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act requires the statement to be relatable to incriminating material or evidence found during the search, especially when considering Section 158BB(1) which restricts computation of undisclosed income to evidence found during search.

Judgments citing Section 132(4)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Trichy vs. Ramasamy Natarajan, Trichy

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

ITA 2641/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2641/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Acit Shri Ramasamy Natarajan बनाम Central Circle-2 # 255, Ganapathy Nagar South, / Vs. Trichy. T.V. Kovil Trichy-620005. "थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpn-8486-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2640/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Acit Shri Jayaraman Muthureddiar बनाम #14, Akila Gardens, 1St Street, Central Circle-2 Trichy. Ganapathy Nagar, T.V.Kovil / Vs. Trichy-620005. "थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadhj-0819-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओर से/ Revenue By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr " थ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Y. Sridhar (Fca) & Ms. Varshha Sridhar (Ca)-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02-01-2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22-01-2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar (FCA) & Ms. VarshhaFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 69

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘सी’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय +ी मनोज कुमार

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Trichy vs. Jayaraman Muthureddiar, Trichy

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

ITA 2640/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2641/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Acit Shri Ramasamy Natarajan बनाम Central Circle-2 # 255, Ganapathy Nagar South, / Vs. Trichy. T.V. Kovil Trichy-620005. "थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpn-8486-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2640/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Acit Shri Jayaraman Muthureddiar बनाम #14, Akila Gardens, 1St Street, Central Circle-2 Trichy. Ganapathy Nagar, T.V.Kovil / Vs. Trichy-620005. "थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadhj-0819-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओर से/ Revenue By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr " थ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Y. Sridhar (Fca) & Ms. Varshha Sridhar (Ca)-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02-01-2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22-01-2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar (FCA) & Ms. VarshhaFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 69

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘सी’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय +ी मनोज कुमार

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Trichy vs. Ahamed Brothers, Trichy

ITA 935/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.934/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2018-19 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.935/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2019-2020 आयकर अपील सं./ Co72/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2019-2020 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Trichy Ahamed Brothers, No.21/1, Singarathope, Trichy Tamil Nadu-620008. [Aahfa7608P] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri T.Vasudevan, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.R.Anita, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 15.01.2025 Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : आदेश / Order S. No. A Appeal Nos. B Ays C Appel-Lant D Cit(A) Order Details E Respondent F

For Appellant: Shri T.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anita, Addl.CIT
Section 133ASection 69A

statement under statement 133A. "..... 5. 3. A power to examine a person on oath is specifically conferred on the authorities only under Section_132(4) of the Act in the course of any search or seizure. Thus, the Income-tax Act, whenever it thought fit and necessary to confer such ... Page - 9 - of 27 ITA No.934 & 935 & CO-72/Chny/2024 :- 10 -: person on oath. Thus, in contradistinction to the power under section 133A, section 132(4) of the Income-tax Act enables the authorised officer to examine a person on oath and any statement made by such person during such