← 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)

Jt CIT (OSD) Central Circle1(4), Mumbai vs. Parel Graphic Print Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, ITA number 880/M/2022 filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 880/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Jt. Commissioner Of Income Podar Media Magazine & Tax Graphics Prints Pvt. Ltd. (Osd), Central Circle 1(4) 85, Podar Centre, 9Th Floor, 902, Parel Post Office Lane, Vs. Pratishtha Bhavan, Opp. Ambedkar Road, M.K. Road, Parel, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecp9649K Jt. Commissioner Of Income Parel Graphic Prints Pvt Tax Limited (Osd), Central Circle 1(4) 85, Podar Centre, 9Th Floor, 902, Parel Post Office Lane, Vs. Pratishtha Bhavan, Opp. Ambedkar Road, M.K. Road, Parel, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagcp2425D Assessee By : Ms. Nishitamandalaywala, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Nimesh Yadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.11.2022

For Appellant: Ms. NishitaMandalaywala, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Nimesh Yadav, CIT DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 56(2)(viib)Section 68

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX v. BEST INFRASTRUCTURE (INDIA) PVT. LTD. has held that: - “38. Fifthly, statements recorded under section 132(4) of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by this court in CIT v. Harjeev Aggarwal (supra). Lastly, as already pointed

Joint CIT (OSD) Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai vs. Podar Media Magazine & Graphics Prints Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, ITA number 880/M/2022 filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 874/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Jt. Commissioner Of Income Podar Media Magazine & Tax Graphics Prints Pvt. Ltd. (Osd), Central Circle 1(4) 85, Podar Centre, 9Th Floor, 902, Parel Post Office Lane, Vs. Pratishtha Bhavan, Opp. Ambedkar Road, M.K. Road, Parel, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecp9649K Jt. Commissioner Of Income Parel Graphic Prints Pvt Tax Limited (Osd), Central Circle 1(4) 85, Podar Centre, 9Th Floor, 902, Parel Post Office Lane, Vs. Pratishtha Bhavan, Opp. Ambedkar Road, M.K. Road, Parel, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagcp2425D Assessee By : Ms. Nishitamandalaywala, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Nimesh Yadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.11.2022

For Appellant: Ms. NishitaMandalaywala, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Nimesh Yadav, CIT DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 56(2)(viib)Section 68

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX v. BEST INFRASTRUCTURE (INDIA) PVT. LTD. has held that: - “38. Fifthly, statements recorded under section 132(4) of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by this court in CIT v. Harjeev Aggarwal (supra). Lastly, as already pointed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centre-Circle-6(4), Mumbai-400021 vs. Shri Saurabh Mittal, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1435/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri M Balaganesh,Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.1435/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Deputy Commissioner Of Shri. Saurabh Mittal A-19, House No.A-01, A-32, Income Tax, Centre- Westend, New Delhi-110 021 Circle-6(4) बिधम/ Room No. 1925, 19Th Vs. Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400 021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No Anapm2488D (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.334 & 333/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Shri. Saurabh Kumar Deputy Commissioner Of Mittal Income Tax, Centre-Circle- Room No.543, 5Th Floor, बिधम/ 6(4) Ayankar Bhavan, Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Vs. M.K.Road, Air India Building, Nariman Mumbai-400 020. Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No Anapm2488D (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Jitendra Joshi, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. A. B. Koli, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 25.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 31.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Joshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri. A. B. Koli, Ld. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 3Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM & SHRI M BALAGANESH,AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A

M/S Nickunj Eximp Enterprises P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT, CC-2(4), Mumbai

ITA 15/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 15/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit Cen. Cir,- 2(4), M/S Nikunj Eximp R. No. 802, Pratistha Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ 4Th Floor, Sri Joravar Bhavan, Bhavan, Old Cgo Vs. 93, M. K. Road, Marine Lines, Annexe, M. K. Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 020 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aabcn0991K (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 13.09.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 31.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 28.10.2020, Passed Ld. Cit(A)-58, Mumbai For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153A For Ay 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds:-

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade, Ld. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 3(1)Section 68

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