← 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)

ACIT Central Circle-30, New Delhi vs. Kamana Industries Pvt Ltd, Sonipat

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4997/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Vs Kamana Industries Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-30, Piau Maniyari, New Delhi. Narela Road, Kundli, Sonepat, Haryana – 131 028. Pan Aabck7580K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.C. Yadav & Shri Shivam Garg, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.07.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: This Appeal In Ita No.4997/Del/2019 For Ay 2013-14 Arises Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi, In Appeal No.172/16- 17/2606 Dated 13.03.2019 [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit(A)’, In Short] Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 153A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 29.12.2016 By The Ld. Income-Tax Officer, Central Circle-30, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’). 2. The Only Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Made On Account Of Share Capital Received By The Assessee In The Sum Of Rs.7,10,00,000/- In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Instant Case.

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 68

incriminating material found during the course of the search. According to the Learned DR statement of Sh. Mulchand Malu recorded under section 132(4) constitute incriminating material and therefore decision of the Kabul Chawla (supra) is not applicable over the facts of the assessee. 9.3 We find that ... Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs Best Infrastructure Private Limited, 397 ITR 82 has held that statement under section 132(4) in the itself does not constitute incriminating material. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble High Court is reproduced as under: “38. Fifthly, statements recorded under