← 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)

Arvind Hanjarimal Jain, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 31 (2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 269/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Jain DixitFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154

without doing any real business which has affirmed by Ld. CIT(A) by observing that retraction of statement recorded during the course under section 132(4) of the Act can not be sole basis to treat the transaction as genuine. Undisputedly, the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings filed

Arvind Hanjarimal Jain, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 31 (2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 268/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Jain DixitFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154

without doing any real business which has affirmed by Ld. CIT(A) by observing that retraction of statement recorded during the course under section 132(4) of the Act can not be sole basis to treat the transaction as genuine. Undisputedly, the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings filed

Arvind Hanjarimal Jain, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 31 (2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 267/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Jain DixitFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154

without doing any real business which has affirmed by Ld. CIT(A) by observing that retraction of statement recorded during the course under section 132(4) of the Act can not be sole basis to treat the transaction as genuine. Undisputedly, the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings filed

Kumaon Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd, Thane vs. ITO Ward 10(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1502/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 147oSection 148Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Shamim Yahya, AM and Shri Amarjit Singh, JM I.T.A

Mukesh Manuprasad Trivedi, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2, Thane

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 224/MUM/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanita No 225/Mum/2020 (A.Ys: 2009-10)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN

Kamla Landmarc Enterprises, Mumbai vs. DCIT-(3)(4), Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1371/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant Modi &For Respondent: Shri Neelam Shukla
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

that: - “23. In view of the settled legal position, the first and foremost issue to be addressed is whether a statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act would by itself be sufficient to assess the income, as disclosed by the Assessee in its statement, under the Provisions ... same could certainly be used in evidence in any proceedings under the Act as expressly mandated by virtue of the explanation to Section 132(4) of the Act. However, such statements on a standalone basis without reference to any other material discovered during search and seizure operations would not empower

Kamla Landmarc Enterprises, Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4), Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1370/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant Modi &For Respondent: Shri Neelam Shukla
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

that: - “23. In view of the settled legal position, the first and foremost issue to be addressed is whether a statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act would by itself be sufficient to assess the income, as disclosed by the Assessee in its statement, under the Provisions ... same could certainly be used in evidence in any proceedings under the Act as expressly mandated by virtue of the explanation to Section 132(4) of the Act. However, such statements on a standalone basis without reference to any other material discovered during search and seizure operations would not empower

Kamla Landmarc Enterprises, Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4), Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1369/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant Modi &For Respondent: Shri Neelam Shukla
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

that: - “23. In view of the settled legal position, the first and foremost issue to be addressed is whether a statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act would by itself be sufficient to assess the income, as disclosed by the Assessee in its statement, under the Provisions ... same could certainly be used in evidence in any proceedings under the Act as expressly mandated by virtue of the explanation to Section 132(4) of the Act. However, such statements on a standalone basis without reference to any other material discovered during search and seizure operations would not empower

Kamla Landmarc Enterprises, Mumbai vs. DCIT-(3)(4), Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1368/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant Modi &For Respondent: Shri Neelam Shukla
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

that: - “23. In view of the settled legal position, the first and foremost issue to be addressed is whether a statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act would by itself be sufficient to assess the income, as disclosed by the Assessee in its statement, under the Provisions ... same could certainly be used in evidence in any proceedings under the Act as expressly mandated by virtue of the explanation to Section 132(4) of the Act. However, such statements on a standalone basis without reference to any other material discovered during search and seizure operations would not empower

Kamla Landmarc Enterprises, Mumbai vs. DCIT-(3)(4), Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1367/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant Modi &For Respondent: Shri Neelam Shukla
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

that: - “23. In view of the settled legal position, the first and foremost issue to be addressed is whether a statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act would by itself be sufficient to assess the income, as disclosed by the Assessee in its statement, under the Provisions ... same could certainly be used in evidence in any proceedings under the Act as expressly mandated by virtue of the explanation to Section 132(4) of the Act. However, such statements on a standalone basis without reference to any other material discovered during search and seizure operations would not empower

Kamla Landmarc Enterprises, Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4), Central Circle, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1366/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant Modi &For Respondent: Shri Neelam Shukla
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

that: - “23. In view of the settled legal position, the first and foremost issue to be addressed is whether a statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act would by itself be sufficient to assess the income, as disclosed by the Assessee in its statement, under the Provisions ... same could certainly be used in evidence in any proceedings under the Act as expressly mandated by virtue of the explanation to Section 132(4) of the Act. However, such statements on a standalone basis without reference to any other material discovered during search and seizure operations would not empower

Kamla Lamdmarc Enterprises, Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4), Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1365/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant Modi &For Respondent: Shri Neelam Shukla
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

that: - “23. In view of the settled legal position, the first and foremost issue to be addressed is whether a statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act would by itself be sufficient to assess the income, as disclosed by the Assessee in its statement, under the Provisions ... same could certainly be used in evidence in any proceedings under the Act as expressly mandated by virtue of the explanation to Section 132(4) of the Act. However, such statements on a standalone basis without reference to any other material discovered during search and seizure operations would not empower

Shailesh J Jogavi, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 5 (3), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6558/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Shailesh J. Jogani, Dcit, Central Circle-5(3), Dw-3010, Room No.1906, 19Th Floor, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Air India Building, Bandra (East), Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai Pan: Aebpj3548M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. S. Jogani Exports Pvt. Dcit, Central Circle-5(3), Ltd., Room No.1906, 19Th Floor, Dw-3010, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Vs. Air India Building, Bandra Kurla Complex, Nariman Point, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 051 Pan: Aalcs4862J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Amol B. Kirtane, D.R
Section 129Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

from the assessee. Disagreeing with the details filed by the assessee and on the basis of statement of Shri Shailesh Jogani recorded under section 132(4) of the Act during search proceedings the Assessing Officer (AO) proceeded to hold that the assessee has taken bogus unsecured loan entries, amounting ... basis of statements of Shri Rajendra Jain, Shri Sanjay Chaudhary and Dharmichand Jain as well as statement of assessee recorded under section 132(4) of the Act, however, the assessee had retracted his statement during assessment proceedings which has not been considered by the AO and brought on record

Shailesh J Jogani, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(3), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7354/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Shailesh J. Jogani, Dcit, Central Circle-5(3), Dw-3010, Room No.1906, 19Th Floor, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Air India Building, Bandra (East), Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai Pan: Aebpj3548M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, D.R
Section 132(4)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147

Shri Sanjay Chaudhary and Dharmichand Jain recorded during the search operation. Statement of assessee was also recorded under 3 Shri Shailesh J. Jogani section 132(4) of the Act whereby he has admitted inter alia that he could not substantiate the genuineness of the unsecured loans taken from Aadi Impex ... made on the basis 4 Shri Shailesh J. Jogani of statements of Shri Rajendra Jain, Shri Sanjay Chaudhary and Dharmichand Jain recorded under section 132(4) as well as statement of assessee recorded under section 132(4) of the Act, however, the assessee had retracted his statement during assessment proceedings

Sri. Joison Kundu Kulam Johny, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 5(3)(6), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 308/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year :2015-16 Shri. Joison Kundu Kulamjohny, Vs. Ito, No.11, Ephrathah Villa, 2Nd Cross, Ward – 5(3)(6), Sathya Colony, B Narayanapura Bengaluru. Dooravani Nagar, Bengaluru–560 016. Pan : Aetpj 6642 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Kumar Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 15.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.03.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B. R. BASKARAN

Mr. B.Nagendra, Bellary vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1946/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Prashant, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 132(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

Mr. B.Nagendra, Belgium vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1945/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Prashant, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 132(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

K R Pradeep, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 417/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Smt. Girija G.P, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)
Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. PADMAVATHY S

Jayesh Basantilal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO-29(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4212/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

Section 132(4)Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234BSection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member I.T.A. No. 4212/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year

Bhagatram Godhwani, Mumbai vs. ITO - 10(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 364/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Bhagatram Godhwani, Income Tax Officer-10(3)(3), 165, 5-B, Sanjay Building No. 5, Aayakar Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, M.K. Road, Mital Industries Estate, Sakinaka, Mumbai-400020. Vs. Andheri East, Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aabpg 3339 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anil Thakrar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Brajendra Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Anil Thakrar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Brajendra Kumar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act. The AO has relied on the statement of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain recorded under section 132(4) of the Act, copy whereof is filed at page No.127 to 131 which contained an exhaustive list of concerns/companies/entities in which Shri Pravin Kumar Jain