← 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, Madurai vs. Beach Minerals Sands Company, Tirunelveli

ITA 1475/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1473 To 1475/Chny/2023 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2017-18 & Cross-Objection Nos. 28 To 30/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2017-18 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.13 & 14/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 & Cross-Objection Nos. 26 & 27/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Acit, Central Circle-1, Madurai-625 002. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. M/S.Beach Minerals Sands Co, 132, Tiruchendur Road, Kuttam, Tirunelveli-627 651. [Pan: Aacfb 5680 P] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent / Cross- Objector) Department By : Mr. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit Assessee By : Mr. S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Appeals Preferred By The Revenue & The Cross-Objections By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of The Appellate Orders Passed By The Learned

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. R. Clement Ramesh
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH: CHENNΑΙ श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक

Vinod Kumar Bajaj, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-32, New Delhi

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

ITA 2189/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanvinod Kumar Bajaj, Vs. Dcit, Plot No.1, Shivaji Enclave Road, Central Circle 32, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110027. (Pan : Aadcr0962Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate Shri Amit Garg, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.09.2024 Date Of Order : 20.11.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi [For Short ‘The Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 15.06.2023 For Assessment Year 2018-19 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit (A)] Is Bad Both In The Eye Of Law & On Facts. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred, Both On Facts & In Law, In Rejecting The Contention Of The Assessee That The Order Passed By The Learned Ao Under Section 153Ar.W.S 143(3) Is Illegal & Bad In Law As The Same Has Been Passed Without Having Valid Jurisdiction.

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 234BSection 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT and