← 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)

Deepak Srichand Bathija, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2600/MUM/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2600/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Deepak Srichand Bathija बिधम/ Nfac, Delhi 5-B, Elegant Apartment, 3, Room No. 356 C.R. Vs. Sobhani Road, Cuffe Building, New Delhi- Parade, Mumbai-400005. 110002. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaapb6001A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hari Raheja Revenue By: Shri Vaibhav Jain सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 25.08.2022 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Filed Eleven (11) Grounds, However, At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Drew Our Attention To Ground No. 1 Wherein The Assessee Has Challenged The Validity Of Reopening Of The Assessment Made By The Ao U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Without Satisfying The Condition Precedents U/S 147 Of The Act. Since It Is A Legal Issue We Would Like To Adjudicate The Same First.

For Appellant: Shri Hari RahejaFor Respondent: Shri Vaibhav Jain
Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM

Joint CIT (OSD) Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai vs. Nabendu Engineering Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 875/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 875/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Nabendu Engineering Jcit (Osd), Cen. Cir-1(4), Pvt. Ltd., 9Th Floor, 902, Pratistha बिधम/ 85, Podar Centre, Parel Bhavan, Old Cgo Post Office Lane, Opp. Vs. Bldg.(Annex), M. K. Road, Ambedkar Road, Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 012 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaecn2103N (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Mahesh Akhade, Ld. Dr Shri Siddharth Kothari, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 15.09.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 12.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Impugned Order Dated 22.02.2022, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-47, Mumbai For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 153C For Ay 2013-14. 2

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Akhade, Ld. DR
Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM, & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकरअपीलसं